Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [Lords].

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time this day at 7 o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 26 February.

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that long supplementary questions are very unfair to other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Redundancies

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been notified to his Department since 3 May 1979.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): The number of proposed redundancies notified to my Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 during the period May 1979 to 31 January 1980 was 471,645 and involved 7,610 establishments. During the same period 91,376 redundancies at 1,280 establishments were formally withdrawn.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that a large proportion of the half million redundancies he has announced are in the

Falkirk company of Glynwed Limited? We have been notified that, owing to Government policies, that company will have to declare a fair number of employees redundant. As that company gave £10,000 to the Tory Party election fund and has obviously been misled, could the Minister make arrangements for the £10,000 to be refunded?

Mr. Lester: Matters concerning Central Office are not the responsibility of my Department.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the Minister accept that the figures he has just given are extremely disturbing? Are they not a disgraceful commentary on nine months of Conservative Government? Many thousands of those redundancies have been in the North-West, not least in my own constituency. When will the Government stop confronting trade unions and workers and begin to deal with the real, deep-seated industrial problems that confront our society, many of which have been created by this Government?

Mr. Lester: I agree that the figures are disturbing, and many of our policies are designed to deal with this changeover in industry. Perhaps I could put those figures in perspective by pointing out that there is no statutory requirement for people to notify withdrawals of redundancies. The Manpower Services Commission figures for the same period are 150,273. Set against 8 million job changes a year, I think that that puts the matter more into perspective.

Mr. Heifer: Is it not clear that the Government's policy of non-intervention in economic matters, and the failure to help those who are put on the dole in areas such as Merseyside, is causing great difficulty and poverty? Is it not time that the Government changed their policy?

Mr. Lester: As regards my Department, the £360 million that my right hon. Friend announced in terms of special measures can hardly be described as nonintervention.

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is in a position to make a statement about the future of the job release scheme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on Thursday 14 February 1980.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the job release scheme is one of the best short-term means of dealing with unemployment without incurring continuing long-term obligations? Does he not think that it is unfortunate that it has proved necessary to curtail this scheme in this way, especially in view of the likely increase in unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I agree that it would have been better if we could have found the money for this scheme. But I had to adjust, examine and balance a number of priorities and I decided that youth employment should have top priority at present.

Mr. Hooley: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there is a repercussive effect in favour of providing jobs for our youth through the job release scheme? By allowing people to retire earlier vacancies are provided for young people and the so-called savings may be illusory.

Mr. Prior: I agree that there is some spin-off through which young people obtain jobs as older people retire under the job release scheme. That is one of the better parts of what I think is a good scheme. But the scheme that I inherited had only just been introduced the previous April and unfortunately it was being paid for out of the Contingency Fund and no proper forecasts for expenditure had been made.

Mr. John Grant: Does the Minister recall that he said he had done well with his package? Does he agree that the best judges of that will be the people who will be on the industrial scrap heap as a consequence of the Government's policies? What will be the net savings of the overall package? The Minister has never given a precise figure.

Mr. Prior: The net savings for the coming year will be about £25 million. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the scheme that his Government introduced just before the election was based on the Contingency Fund, with planned expenditure for the next two years for which no allowance had been made in the Estimates.

Retirement Schemes

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers' organisations on the need to introduce flexible retirement schemes.

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers' organisations on the need for flexible retirement schemes to be introduced.

Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend has received the CBI's views on flexible retirement, which were set out most recently in its discussion document "Jobs —Facing The Future". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has also been considering representations from the CBI and other interested bodies on this subject in response to his Department's discussion document "A Happier Old Age".

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of interest among trade unions and the many thousands of trade unionists who are not affected by the existing early retirement schemes? Does he agree that now, more than ever, there is an immediate priority need for flexibility of retirement if we are to maintain job opportunities and seek improved mobility of labour?

Mr. Lester: I accept that there is a balance to be struck between those who want to retire early and those who want to continue at work. We have always had flexibility of retirement between the ages of 65 and 70 for men. The question now is the cost of extending that flexibility below the age of 65. It is astronomical but it is something to be considered.

Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that firms that rigidly adhere to a retirement age are often losing highly experienced people of whom they could be making good use? The nation cannot afford to lose such people now.

Mr. Lester: I agree with my hon. Friend. The accent must be on flexibility and on arrangements made with employers and employees, in particular in industries undergoing technological change.

Job Vacancies

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployment and job vacancy figures for the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: In January there were 1,404,389 people registered as unemployed in Great Britain and the numbers of notified unfilled vacancies were 184,626 at employment offices and 19,147 at careers offices. I am naturally concerned about the current level of unemployment, but our economic policies are aimed at providing the right climate for an expansion of genuine employment.

Mr. Woolmer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are working on the assumption that there will be 2 million unemployed by early next year? Has he studied the business forecast by the Charterhouse City group, which predicts 500,000 more unemployed this year? Will the Secretary of State assert his responsibility in the Cabinet and join his anonymous colleague by rejecting the A-level of economics of the Treasury Bench and placing the economic policy strategy emphasis on growth and higher employment instead of deflation, unemployment and confict?

Mr. Prior: The public expenditure White Paper announced that the figures that the Government were working on for the year 1980–81 were 1·65 million unemployed. That is consistent with the forecast made by the Manpower Services Commission which was available recently for the Select Committee. I have never sought to conceal from the House the fact that unemployment in the present world situation is bound to rise.

Mr. Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not lie in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, to raise the question of unemployment when they presided over its doubling when they were in office? Will he further say that the two obstacles in the way of reducing unemployment are the present high levels of wage settlements and interest rates?

Mr. Prior: The last two matters are of great importance. Part of the reason

for our policy of reducing public expenditure is to enable the PSBR to come down. That will be an enormous aid to reducing unemployment and it is a factor that I take into account. I agree with the other point that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Secretary of State understand that in the appalling figures he has quoted he hides the disaster of areas such as the North-East? Does he realise that it is high time he fought his corner in the Cabinet in an effort to spend more money on job creation schemes in regions such as the North-East?

Mr. Prior: I fully appreciate the serious problems of the North-East. We shall not resolve the problems of unemployment and so on by thinking that we have only to spend more Government money. That is precisely why interest rates are so high and why unemployment is created, because of those interest rates.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the unemployment figures from his Department are fundamentally bogus because they make no distinction between those who are genuinely and unwillingly unemployed and those who are willingly unemployed and members of the black economy?

Mr. Prior: There is always a great deal of argument about how unemployment figures are computed. As a trend, the figures are reliable. Regrettably, that trend is upwards and it will remain so until, first, the world situation improves and secondly, until we stop buying other people's goods and make them buy more of ours.

Mr. John Evans: Which of the Government's present economic policies is the Secretary of State confident will reduce unemployment in areas such as the North-West, which have lost assisted area status?

Mr. Prior: A general upturn in the economy. That will come about only when we reduce our unit costs, sell more abroad and stop importing so much.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State recall that he made a bold forecast a year ago that a Tory Government would stimulate the economy and create a better climate for industry and commerce? Has


not the opposite occurred? We now have soaring inflation while production and investment are falling. Record interest rates are destroying small businesses and jobs and we are heading towards 2 million unemployed and the collapse of the economy. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be hanging his head in shame?

Mr. Prior: The only mistake that I made was to be more optimistic than I should have been about the state of the economy when we took it over from the right hon. Gentleman.

Pay Comparability

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when last he met Professor Hugh Clegg.

Mr. Prior: I last met Professor Clegg on Wednesday 23 January.

Mr. Price: When the right hon. Gentleman met Hugh Clegg did he discuss teachers' pay with him? Will he tell us whether the principles laid down in the Houghton report will be adhered to or abandoned? What has been the cost of the debacle in which the consultants hired to work out the teachers' settlement made such a dog's breakfast of their task that it had to be abandoned and the Commission had to start from square one again?

Mr. Prior: I did not discuss individual cases with Hugh Clegg. I am certain that he would have regarded it as an improper use of my function if I had done so. Therefore, the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. The Commission hopes to report on its work on school and further education teachers in April, as it has always said it would.

Mr. Hal Miller: Did my right hon. Friend tell Professor Clegg that he was going to wind up the Commission after the current round of inquiries?

Mr. Prior: No, I did not tell him that. Professor Clegg has performed an important role for both this Govenment and the previous one. It is far too early to say whether there will be other cases that we might wish to put to the Commission.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the learned professor may lead him into a quagmire and that sup-

posed comparisons between the risk-taking private sector and the rather more comfortable public service will cause nothing but trouble for himself and the Government?

Mr. Prior: A lot of people are trying to lead me into quagmires at the moment. I shall always acquit my hon. Friend of any such attempt. He has made a serious point. A comparability that merely results in one set of public sector wages following a private sector set of wages provides no answer to our problems. Our problems are largely the result of high wages.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have entered unemployment since the beginning of the current year.

Mr. Jim Lester: Between 6 December 1979 and 10 January 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain rose by 43,700 from 1,233,700 to 1,277,400, excluding school leavers and seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not clear that that relatively modest increase will be dwarfed by the increase we shall experience in the next six or seven months unless Government policy is changed and in particular, unless the level of sterling is reduced? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present level of sterling allows other countries to export unemployment to us in ever increasing numbers?

Mr. Lester: I accept the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's last point. However, there is a long way to go before we reach the increase of 600,000 in the number of unemployed for which the previous Labour Administration was responsible.

Mr. Knox: In view of the lag of 12 to 18 months between the time when measures concerning unemployment are taken and when they have an effect on the levels of unemployment, will my hon. Friend confirm that the level of unemployment would have been just as high if the Labour Party had remained in power?

Mr. Lester: I agree that it would have been quite as high, if not higher.

Mr. Radice: Given the prospects of employment for next year, why are the Government cutting back the budget of the Manpower Services Commission by £130 million?

Mr. Lester: The Manpower Services Commission cannot be exempt from overall expenditure cuts.

Mr. Radice: Why not?

Mr. Lester: The Government have ensured that the MSC budget is more effectively used. No apprenticeship places have been lost and, as a result of special measures, efficiency has been increased.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the Minister realise that the commercial facts surrounding British Leyland mean that if the company does not receive further Government subvention, it will inevitably go to the wall? What proposals does the Minister have in mind to cater for such a catastrophe?

Mr. Lester: British Leyland is the concern of the Department of Industry. However, we already have a temporary short-time working scheme that will be made available to British Leyland should it need to use it.

Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

Mr. Needham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in how many disputes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been involved since the beginning of January.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am advised that during January the service was involved in providing assistance by way of conciliation in 199 cases throughout the country.

Mr. Needham: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that ACAS is well qualified to deal with difficult and complicated disputes and that we should not rely on the intervention of Ministers or Prime Ministers over coffee and sandwiches at No. 10, as so often happened during the previous Administration?

Mr. Mayhew: I certainly agree that the resolution of an industrial dispute is best left to those party to it. However, it is

wise to invoke the expert and impartial assistance of ACAS.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Can the Minister tell us how much more money has been put aside for the development of ACAS since the change in the law on picketing that has been announced today will exacerbate industrial disputes?

Mr. Mayhew: Changes in the law on picketing are embodied in the Employment Bill that was published on 7 December. It is expected that those proposals will considerably reduce the disruption and abuses to which picketing gives rise. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the budget for ACAS.

Mr. Michael Brown: Has my hon. and learned Friend received any request from the BSC or from the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to act as an arbitrator in the current dispute?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I have received no such request. ACAS has been involved in the steel dispute. It has held several meetings, the most recent of which was held on 13 February. Unfortunately, no progress was made.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that the information requested by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), relates to the lack of Government interference in the steel industry? Why do the Government refuse to intervene on behalf of an industry for which they are greatly responsible? Is it not time that the Minister used his good offices, together with the Prime Minister, to ensure that the steel dispute is settled as it should be, and not according to the attitude of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Mayhew: The pay dispute in the steel industry is extremely painful and serious. However, it is the same in character as any other pay dispute. It will be best settled by those who are party to it.

Short-time Working Compensation Scheme

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what decision he has now made on the future of the temporary short-time working compensation scheme for the textile industry.

Mr. Jim Lester: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Thursday, 14 February 1980.

Mr. Straw: Is not the Minister aware that, in the light of the Government's failure to secure adequate protection for the textile industry—which was condemned by all parties yesterday—there is an urgent need for conditions relating to the scheme to be improved? Will he at least consider improving the scheme?

Mr. Lester: We are always prepared to consider improving any of our schemes within the budget allowed.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend take note that the measure to increase the amount of money allocated to the industrial language training scheme for those on short-term work and those who are unemployed has been widely accepted and welcomed in my constituency?

Mr. Lester: I shall be delighted to take note of that. It demonstrates that we change the rules where beneficial.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that many thousands of jobs in the textile industry have been lost during the past few months? Does he further accept that tinkering about with such schemes provides no solution? Will he impress upon his colleagues in his Department and in the Department of Trade that there is no substitute for more stringent controls on imports into the United Kingdom, particularly from low-cost countries?

Mr. Lester: As my constituency is close to that of the hon. Gentleman I recognise clearly that the textile industry has not contracted only during the past few months. It has been contracting during the past few years. It is the most protected industry in Britain. I recognise that imports cause a grave disturbance in the textile industry. Basically, the textile industry is a good industry. It works well and has a high productivity rate. However, there has been a change in world demand. The question of low-cost countries producing goods without subsidies for sale in Britain and competing with our factories, must be dealt with. The future of the textile industry depends on the up-grading of its products. We must concentrate on higher quality and higher technology, as that side of the industry is still expanding.

BSC Plants (Jobs Loss)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate how many jobs will be lost in the period immediately following the closure of British Steel Corporation plants in each part of Great Britain, including those most likely to be affected in small businesses and the retail trade; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jim Lester: Employment levels depend on many factors which cannot be forecast with any degree of certainty. It is not, therefore, possible to estimate how many jobs will be lost following the closure of BSC plants. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that all the resources of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to help those workers affected by the closures.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman consider allowing the British Steel Corporation to offer another 1 or 2 per cent. above that already offered to the trade unions involved? After all, the Government gave the higher taxpayers £4 billion in tax relief. Is he aware that there is a danger of growing unemployment becoming a danger to the State?

Mr. Lester: I am not in a position to offer the steel workers 1 or 2 per cent. That is a matter for negotiation between the management and unions involved. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has already been an increase of 1 or 2 per cent. on more than one occasion.

Mr. Sever: Will the Minister agree to undertake research into the likely effects of the problems surrounding steel on small manufacturers and engineering shops, particularly in areas such as Birmingham? Those firms are desperately worried about the steel industry's difficulties. While the Minister has admitted that the figures are not readily available, will he take steps to find out what they are?

Mr. Lester: I accept that there is a need for research. My Department is researching into the position of the longterm unemployed. As a result of the closure announcements, local authorities have come together with the Government and with the steel industry to try to secure the future on a better and broader basis.

Secondary Industrial Action

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement concerning the Government's current policy regarding secondary picketing.

Mr. Prior: Our proposals to limit lawful picketing to an employee's own place of work are already contained in the Employment Bill, which is before the House.
I have today written to the TUC, drawing its attention to the widespread public concern about some of the recent incidents of mass picketing in the current dispute, and pointing out the extent to which much of this is already contrary to the criminal law. I have made it clear that the Government look to the TUC to reaffirm its advice to all member unions to observe the TUC's own guidance on picketing, which it produced last winter.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his helpful reply will be greeted with enthusiasm by many people in the country? Does he agree that secondary picketing is a symptom of a wider malaise—that of the closed shop? Is he aware that in my constituency people who are still at work are being requested in letters from the union to pay £5 to cross the picket line? Does he agree that consultations should take into account those gross abuses of the closed shop, which amount to industrial blackmail?

Mr. Prior: That matter does need examining. My hon. Friend will be well advised to ask those who are being requested to pay such sums to check union rules to see whether that is within the rules. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said about the closed shop. It is necessary to strengthen those parts of the Employment Bill dealing with the closed shop, such as arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from a union, which underly the fear that many people have that, if they cross a picket line or take the action that my hon. Friend mentioned, they will lose their union card and their job. I do not believe that such action is supported by either side of the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that Lord Salmon in Hunt v. Broome said that the

provision in the 1974 Act gave a narrow but real criminal immunity for peaceful picketing? Does he concede that clause 14 will involve more people in the threat of criminal prosecution than he has so far admitted?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept that. I had the matter checked, following the hon. Gentleman's remarks on Second Reading. The Bill does not make picketing a criminal offence. It gives employers the remedy to take civil proceedings to restrain secondary picketing in the way that I have described on many occasions.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on reflection, clause 3 of the Employment Bill is weak and inadequate in dealing with the closed shop and poses a fundamental constitutional danger? Will he accept that it leaves the judges to decide a most important political principle, and will bring them, once again, into the political arena, thus damaging the rule of law?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept that clause 3 is too weak. Nor do I accept that, when seen alongside a code of practice, there is any need for it to bring judges into the political arena. The truth is far from that. I believe that many people will abide by what is good practice with regard to expulsion or exclusion, and we may have many fewer cases than people expect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement on this matter at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Heifer: Not on this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am hoping that those hon. Members who, I know, are interested in the subject will be called after Question Time.

Mr. !feller: The statement is not on this point.

Mr. Speaker: I want to be fair to the House. I shall call two more hon. Members from either side, if they wish to catch my eye now. Those who are called now will not be called after Question Time.

Young Persons (Training Opportunities)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has


any specific proposals to assist young people with training opportunities in urban areas where there has been a rundown of existing industry.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that a wide range of training courses is already available under the youth opportunities programme to unemployed young people in urban areas. The programme, as my right hon. Friend announced on 14 February 1980, has been expanded to provide about a quarter of a million opportunities in 1980–81. Planned provision in the coming year will take account of changes in industrial structure.

Mr. Hughes: Do I need to remind the Minister of the critical situation obtaining in South Wales? Will he accept that, if the area is not to be turned into an industrial desert, we need more than an extension of the youth opportunities programme? Will he prevail on senior ministerial colleagues to intervene now, as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman's main question refers to training opportunities for young people. In South Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a commitment to give young people adequate training. The schemes are designed to fit young people for the areas in which there are job opportunities.

Mr. Madel: In looking at the role of skillcentres, will my hon. Friend consider not only the shortage of instructors but the age at which a young person may enter a skillcentre for training?

Mr. Lester: As my hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a review of training generally, including skillcentres. The Departments of Employment and Education and Science are considering together how to encourage young people to work in the best way possible. In that context, we shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Eastham: Does the Minister agree that it is time that we had a fresh look at the formula whereby the Department issues figures relating to the travelto-work areas? Does he accept that the formula distorts the real figures? Is the

hon. Gentleman aware that in Manchester, where the overall unemployment figure is 6·1 per cent., in certain areas it is double that? Does he agree that it is time that we altered the travel-towork formula to show the true urban position?

Mr. Lester: It is not very long since the travel-to-work formula was arrived at. I shall be visiting Manchester on Thursday to look at the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, he is quoting figures based on where people live and not where they work.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should concentrate on the enterprise workshop training programme? Will he accept that that gives the chance to found an enterprise that will have a permanent effect on an area?

Mr. Lester: We are delighted to concentrate on any scheme that is enterprising and makes a profit.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does the Minister agree that the review of the skil /centre programme is being carried out by the Manpower Services Commission as a result of his Department's proposal to close 20 skillcentres? Will he confirm that his Department is also proposing to cut the training opportunities programme from the 99,000 places of two years ago to 60,000 for next year? Will he accept that that is foolish at a time when unemployment is soaring and when we have skill shortages that training could, to some extent, remedy?

Mr. Lester: The review of the skill-centre programme was started under the right hon. Gentleman's Government. It was designed to try to make effective use of existing facilities. I do not accept that altering the numbers of the TOPS scheme will reduce overall training opportunities. The areas in which there is a proposed reduction can best be covered by industry.

Voluntary Unemployment

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to identify the extent of voluntary unemployment; and what is his latest estimate of the numbers involved.

Mr. Jim Lester: The application of rules about the unemployed accepting suitable jobs has been under review and


I am awaiting the views of the Manpower Services Commission. The work of DHSS unemployment review officers has continued on the greater scale already announced. As I explained to my hon. Friend on 4 December, I do not have an estimate of the extent to which there are people on the unemployment register who may be described as voluntarily unemployed.

Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that about 750,000 vacancies are still unfilled? Will he accept that employers throughout the country are having difficulty in obtaining staff? Does he agree that a great many people are caught in the unemployment trap and simply cannot afford to work? What steps do the Government intend to take?

Mr. Lester: The unemployment trap is a matter for the DHSS, which is reviewing the problem. If we are told of specific cases of unfilled vacancies we shall be pleased to consider them. It is a complex issue. Frequently, it is a problem of a mismatch of skills. The matters that employers raise are not quite so simple when looked at in detail. I have investigated many cases and I could give chapter and verse on the problem. I do not want to minimise the fact that it is a serious situation when vacancies are notified but people remain unemployed. We hope to announce proposals to deal with the problem in the near future.

Mr. Haynes: Bearing in mind that the country is in a serious situation because of Government policies, will the Minister give thought to the Government Front Bench opting for voluntary unemployment?

Trade Union Legislation

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further representations he has received over trade union legislation.

Mr. Prior: I have received a number of further representations about the Employment Bill since it was published on 7 December.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that legal battles against the trade union movement will no more succeed now than did the 1971 Tory legislation? Would

it not be far more sensible for the Cabinet hawks, such as, for example, the Prime Minister, to drop policies which are now provoking strikes in industry?

Mr. Prior: An overwhelming majority of people, including trade unionists, wish to see a sensible framework of law in which trade unions, employers and workers can operate. If Labour Members continue to take the view that they have taken in the past, they are doing themselves and their country a great disservice.

Mr. Bulmer: Does not the union decision at Longbridge—in the case of Mr. Robinson—to call for a mass meeting rather than hold a secret ballot, with all the possibilities of intimidation that will follow, demonstrate once more the need for individual workers to have the right to call for a secret ballot? What representations has my right hon. Friend received, and is he in sympathy with them?

Mr. Prior: I am greatly in sympathy with the holding of secret ballots. A number of trade unionists, including Conservative trade unionists wish to see such ballots made compulsory. So far, I have taken the view that it is better to have voluntary acceptance of secret ballots, and that is the way in which the Bill is framed. I hope that when the Bill is enacted, and money is made available, more and more people will make use of postal ballots and workplace ballots held in employers' time.

Mr. Heller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Labour Members find it regrettable that he, whom we have all liked and understood—and who has fought a rearguard action in the Cabinet—has nevertheless succumbed to the pressures of his colleagues? If the working party document that was sent out today is included in legislation trade unionists will be worse off than they were prior to 1974, particularly on the basis of the suggestion in (a) dealing with the test. Is not that likely to lead to greater confrontation in industry?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Furthermore, there is overwhelming acceptance in the country of the need for certain immunities to be limited. At the moment they go too far, and they cannot even protect employees who wish to work but who are not able to do so.

Industrial Relations Hearings (Employee and Employer Representation)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employees and what percentage of employers are represented by lawyers, by union officials or by other industrial relations advisors, respectively, at industrial relations hearings.

Mr. Mayhew: For statistics on the percentages of employers and employees represented by lawyers and trade union representatives in industrial tribunal hearings, I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer that I gave on 29 January. Statistics for representation by "other industrial relations advisers" are not available.

Mr. Janner: Is it not correct that, whatever the representation, the failure rate of cases concerning unfair dismissal which now reach industrial tribunals is 72 per cent.? Nearly three out of four cases fail. If that is correct, will the Minister reconsider the Government's proposal to remove the burden of proving fairness from employers in cases which are already heavily weighted in the employers' favour?

Mr. Mayhew: We must look at the matter in the context of encouraging employers, particularly small employers, to create new jobs, and to maintain existing jobs. There is another side to the figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Employers have been brought to the tribunal to answer claims for unfair dismissal which, in 70 per cent. of the cases, have proved to be unsustainable. That is part of the problem which must be faced.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that the reason why so many cases are turned down by industrial tribunals is that they are fatuous cases in the beginning?

Mr. Mayhew: There is a widely held feeling that a mechanism needs to be instituted to filter out the truly hopeless case before the employer has to go to court with his foreman, his production manager and so on, and spend a day or two days there, only to find, having won the case, that he receives no costs.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the grave imperfections of the present law on industrial tribunals is that employers can be brought before them, and yet no costs can be awarded? Does not that militate unfairly against employers who have to spend considerable time and effort in attending industrial tribunals, often to defend wholly fictitious claims?

Mr. Mayhew: Although it is not quite accurate to say that no costs can be awarded, they are awarded in 2 to 3 per cent. of cases only—cases in which the claim is shown to be frivolous and vexatious. The Government are aware of the concern that is felt, and we propose to make certain improvements.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Janner: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the forecast of the Manpower Services Commission that shortly there may be over 2 million people unemployed, and that the number of unemployed school leavers is likely to double? If the Prime Minister accepts those figures, does she not think that now would be a good time to release thousands of jobs to younger people, by allowing men over 60 who wish to retire to do so?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have never made forecasts of unemployment. I hope that those for the first quarter of 1981 will turn out to be unfounded. I cannot emphasise too strongly that if people continue to make excessive wage claims, those claims can, by pricing goods out of the market, lead to increased unemployment. I trust that that will not happen.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the fact that the people of Canada yesterday voted out of office a Government


obsessed with the same disastrous economic doctrines as those of the right hon. Lady—after a mercifully short spell in office—will she provide at least some of the British electorate with a similar opportunity to pass judgment by delaying no longer the writ for the Southend, East by-election?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we were returned to power with a very convincing majority.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to meet Sir Michael Swann, and to convey to him the increasing unhappiness over proposals to discontinue regional broadcasting. Those proposals are particularly unacceptable while allegations persist of wasteful programming on the networks, and while there is a suspicion that local radio is to be financed at the expense of regional radio.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of Sir Michael Swann. The way in which the programmes are arranged must remain a matter for the BBC, but it must be sensitive to public opinion.

Mr. Stoddart: Does the right hon. Lady recall promises to families during the general election campaign? Does she realise that families with children are now ravaged by inflation, high rents, high mortgage charges and additional school meal and transport charges? They are getting a very bad deal. Will she instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase child benefits substantially from 1 April?

The Prime Minister: With regard to child benefit, as the hon. Gentleman knows, such decisions are usually announced in the Budget. I ask him to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I also ask him to consider that the moneys to pay these benefits so often come from the breadwinners of the families, and it does not always make good sense to take in tax, put it through big bureaucracies, and to pay back rather less.

Mr. David Price: Will my right hon. Friend, in any further consideration of the middle ground of industrial relations reform, consider implementing a former

Government White Paper of January 1969 entitled "In Place of Strife"? If she did this we would get a general agreement on the matter.

The Prime Minister: There is widespread agreement on that matter. We are making a very good start in the Employment Bill and there is a consultative document which will take the law a little further on the matter of protecting law-abiding citizens and firms.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Newens: Will the Prime Minister condemn the apparent involvement of Rhodesian security forces in the bombing of churches by terrorists? Does she agree that this incident underlines the need for Lord Soames not to rely on the security forces to the extent to which he has done so far? What action will she take, in view of recent events, to ensure that he does not have to rely on them?

The Prime Minister: I shall condemn bombing and intimidation from whatever quarter it may come. My noble Friend Lord Soames has done his best to eliminate intimidation in Rhodesia. On the particular incident that the hon. Member mentioned, I cannot give a report yet because investigations are not fully completed.

Mr. William Shelton: Have my right hon. Friend's thoughts turned to the Common Market and the British contribution to it? If so, will she consider taking the "empty seat policy" of De Gaulle until our case is recognised?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I believe that I am more effective by being in my seat than by leaving it empty.

Mr. Ashley: Despite so many heavy commitments, will the right hon. Lady consider making a personal visit to areas of high unemployment and poverty so that she can see the grim reality? Will she agree that we are now heading for economic and social unrest which will damage the social fabric of this country


unless the present abrasive policies are changed?

The Prime Minister: I do not in any way accept the right hon. Member's premise that we are heading for economic and social unrest. I get about the country a lot and I shall continue to visit all areas. Increasing unemployment is not part of Conservative policy.

Sir Graham Page: Will my right hon. Friend waylay the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and ask him how many civil servants have responded to his request to become "deep throats"—which apparently means that they should give the Labour Party information about Britain's security services?

The Prime Minister: I saw the reports in the press. I very much hope that they are not true because any such request would severely undermine the very best traditions of the Civil Service in this country.

Mr. Faulds: Having paid lip service to St. Francis, at the instigation of Saatchi & Saatchi when she first entered No. 10, will the Prime Minister ponder today—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Speak up.

Mr. Faulds: I think that hon. Members can hear me, but just in case they cannot I shall repeat the question—

Mr. Speaker: Order, the House heard the hon. Member.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Prime Minister ponder today on whether she is really enamoured of the selfish, self-concerned and uncaring society that she is trying to create?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that Saatchi & Saatchi were experts on St. Francis. If they are, I must consult them more often. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency are qualities that one would expect of most families in this country. If those who are able and fit can keep their families and keep them well and then have a little over to help others, we shall have a much better society than we have now.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Marlow: In the interests of manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend take whatever action is necessary to lift the blockade of steel supplies either through the ports or from the steel stockholders, and tell the workers at Hadfield's that they can go back to work tomorrow because the Government will take the necessary action to ensure their protection?

The Prime Minister: A great deal of steel in still moving, and production throughout manufacturing industry in this country has kept up remarkably well. With regard to the incidents that we saw on television outside Hadfield's, I cannot condemn them enough. Those incidents bore no relation to peaceful picketing, which is the only kind protected by the law. If we are to get scenes like that—and this appeared to be more a criminal matter than a civil one—we must leave enforcement in the hands of the police. We should give the police our full backing in their difficult duties.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Lady aware of increasing concern that is being expressed about the decision of the British Steel Corporation to run down the size of the industry to 15 million tonnes? This is regarded as too low by many people who should know. Do the Government intend to stand aside from this decision, irrespective of the consequences to our nation, which is so dependent on external trade? Will she confirm that the Government intend to ask a leading American business man to run the British Steel Corporation? Is that not a remarkable way of dealing with the industry at a time when the chairman and the other directors are engaged in negotiations? Is she not, in fact, telling the workers that their chairman will be sacked in a short while? Is not the real trouble that Sir Charles Villiers and Mr. Scholey have been too zealous in carrying out Government policy? That is their real crime.

The Prime Minister: The management of the British Steel Corporation is charged with the duty of running the corporation and so far we do not intend to interfere with its decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been some


difficult decisions to face on running down the industry. He himself had to take some in his constituency. He knows that we provided £48 million for Wales, to help with the effects of the run-down in steel there. The position of the chairman of British Steel Corporation must not be undermined—I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The chairman and the trade union leaders have the job of settling this strike and we have every confidence in his doing so.
On the question of the appointment of the chairman, we would be culpable if we were not looking for someone as a possible replacement for Sir Charles, bearing in mind that he goes towards the end of the year.

Mr. Callaghan: But surely the chairman's position is undermined if these stories are allowed to leak from Government sources. It seems that the chairman is to be replaced in the middle of the negotiations that he is conducting. Has the Prime Minister any idea from which of her Ministers this story came? On the first question, The Prime Minister has a direct responsibility for th, size of the industry. It is a strategic industry, and investment cannot be left to the test of market profitability in our country. Surely the Government should satisfy themselves about the future size of the industry?

The Prime Minister: I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's questions in order. There is no question of undermining the authority of Sir Charles Villiers as chairman of the British Steel Corporation. I express my confidence in him, and I hope that he and the steel unions will get together to sort out this strike. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the size of the steel industry. The size of an industry is determined by what it can sell and the quality and delivery dates of its products. Other steel industries on the Continent that have gone through difficult times have steadily come through to profitability. I believe that ours can do the same.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Since the Prime Minister entered No. 10 Downing Street reciting the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, will she take time to consider why, instead of bringing an answer to that prayer, she has brought discord, error, doubt and despair to the country?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree. I hope, however, that he will agree, as a Scot, that it is not easy to get a nation to learn to live within its means when it has been living outside its means for a long time.

PICKETING LAW

The Attorney-General(Sir Michael Havers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the criminal law on picketing.
The recent events outside the private steel firms have renewed public anxiety about the law on picketing and intimidation. I must emphasise that the law on picketing does not, in any real way, change the criminal law and in no way diminishes the rules that govern public order.
The criminal law of the land applies to pickets as it does to anybody else. Let there be no illusion that the immunity provided under the civil law enables pickets to break the criminal law.
Peaceful picketing in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is lawful so long as it is the honest belief of those involved that their action will advance the interests of those in dispute. This does not mean that the freedom to picket is a licence to obstruct or intimidate. The law permits picketing solely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading another person to work or not to work.
The immunity from civil proceedings given by section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 does not extend to any wrongful act such as violence, threats of violence or similar intimidation—whether by excessive numbers of pickets or otherwise, or molestation amounting to a civil wrong. In those circumstances it may be open to the employer, on his own behalf or on that of his work force, to take action in the civil courts. In addition, the criminal law is perfectly clear. Each of us has the right to go about his daily work or pleasure free from interference by anybody else. Each one of us is free, as an individual, to come and go as he pleases to his home or to his place of work.
The law specifically protects our enjoyment of those rights. If anyone tries


to deter us from exercising those rights by the use of violence or intimidation. or obstruction, he is breaking the law and may be punished.
The freedom to picket does not confer or imply any right to stop vehicles; still less do pickets have the right to stop people going about their lawful business. Pickets have no right to link arms or otherwise prevent access to the place that they are picketing. This is not a new situation. The present law was made clear by my predecessor on 25 January last year, in column 706 of the Official Report and by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson in 1972, when he was Attorney-General.
If pickets by sheer numbers seek to stop people going to work or delivering or collecting goods they are not protected by the law, since their purpose is to obstruct rather than persuade. Are large numbers really necessary in the name of lawful, peaceful persuasion? They are more likely to lead to unlawful assembly, or even an affray.
So far as excessive numbers are concerned, the courts have recognised that the police may limit the number of pickets in any one place where they have reasonable cause to fear disorder. In my view, this includes, in the appropriate case, not only asking some of those present to leave but also preventing others from joining the pickets.
The enforcement of the law is, and must remain, a matter for the police and the courts. I recognise the difficult task that chief officers of the police have in deciding how order can best be maintained so as to ensure that ordinary people can exercise their own rights.
It is the function of the law to protect the rights of people—employers and employees—to go about their daily business, to work or not to work, and to make their own decisions whether to exercise those rights. If we let go of that principle we risk abandoning the rule of law and risk surrender to the rule of violence.
I hope that by stating the main principles of the law, with which the Lord Advocate agrees, I have removed the doubts and encouraged all those concerned, whether pickets or others, to respect and uphold the law. I am sure that

the great majority in this country will support this.

Mr. Archer: The House will be grateful to the Attorney-General for his statement of the present law, but, for the avoidance of misunderstanding in the country, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear that what he said purports to be a statement of the law and is not concerned in any way with changing it?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is a matter for chief constables and others concerned with law enforcement to ensure that the criminal law is administered, bearing in mind, as they do, that emotive situations are not always improved by introducing criminal sanctions?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman impress on his right hon. and hon. Friends that their task is not made easier by inflammatory pronouncements by politicians? Will he confirm that there is a well recognised tradition that Ministers of the Crown, including Law Officers and Lords Chancellor, do not seek to instruct chief constables in the way that they should carry out their duty.

The Attorney-General: The statement that I made set out the law as it is today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to chief constables. I think that all hon. Members have great admiration for the way in which the police have dealt with the problems facing them. It is the duty of chief constables to administer the law. The man on the spot is best able to judge what action he must take. I agree that no help is ever given to any situation by inflammatory statements. We on the Government side would also like to see a little support for the upholding of the law from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have the least doubt that if the pickets who have been responsible for violent and alarming disturbances of the peace outside factory gates had not been members of a trade union but ordinary members of the public they would have been arrested and exposed to the risk of a sentence of imprisonment? Does he agree that there is not only no immunity in law but that there should be no immunity in practice to trade unionists or others who cause


an unlawful assembly, an affray, or a riot?

The Attorney-General: As I said in my statement, the criminal law applies to all, whether he be a picket or anyone else. In every case, in my view, it must be for the senior police officer on the spot, bearing in mind the number of people there and the pressures facing him, to make the difficult decision about what action to take.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Attorney-General agree that his statement amounts to an assertion that the present criminal law on picketing is adequate to deal with the situation? If that is what his statement means, how do the Government propose to ensure that the law is administered in this country? Will they have particular regard, in that context, to those people joining picket lines who are not members of trade unions but who are there purely and solely for the purpose of trouble making?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the problems always is that Rent-a-Mob, or those who simply want to have a beat-up, sometimes join picket lines. When those who have been arrested in the past appear in court, one may find that this is the case. I made the statement to remove some doubts that appear to exist about the criminal law. I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be meeting the representatives of chief police officers tomorrow, at their request. My right hon. Friend will hear their views on their problems in enforcing the law. It is not for me to comment on that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep an open mind on the recommendations of Sir David McNee on amending the Public Order Act 1936, in which he suggests that mass picketing, as at Grunwick and other places, might be considered in connection with such amendments?

The Attorney-General: I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is undertaking a review of the Act. He is considering a consultative document on the complex issue.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Attorney-General agree that sometimes the media

bear a responsibility for inflaming a situation by giving the wrong interpretation of incidents? In mitigation, will he consider a report in the Morning Telegraph today in which Geroge Moores, the chairman of the South Yorkshire police authority, states that the incidents that occurred at Hadfields were not intimidation, and that the chief constable of that area carried out the law to its full intent?

The Attorney-General: I have not seen a copy of the newspaper referred to by the hon. Gentleman. There are occasions—not only in this aspect but with IRA parades, and so on—where the television cameras appear to see things that others do not see, sometimes for reasons that can only do harm. It is something that should be borne in mind when watching television programmes.

Sir Paul Bryan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House the position under the law of an individual or organisation that actively organises disorder by assembling pickets by the busload and directing them in such overwhelming numbers to a site that disorder is bound to follow?

The Attorney-General: That is a problem to he dealt with by police at the site. If they consider that there are enough, or too many, pickets they can stop the buses. The position of those who organise the pickets must depend each day on the circumstances. It may be that when the busloads were organised there were only half a dozen pickets at the site. If the busloads are organised and sent to a site where there are hundreds of pickets, a different situation arises.
It may be a matter of conspiring to incite, but each case would have to stand upon its own merits.

Mr. Urwin: The Attorney-General's statement has been precipitated by the secondary picketing in the steel industry. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that it would have been more to the benefit of the whole country if a statement had been made by one of his ministerial colleagues? An early intervention by the Government in the steel industry pay dispute would have


removed the cause of secondary picketing.

The Attorney-General: The Law Officers owe a duty to the House to express a view on the law. Clearly there is some doubt in various areas about the law. If one looks at the newspapers over the past few days one finds that that is amply demonstrated.
I thought that it would be helpful to the House and to the public if a clear, simple exposition was given of the law as it relates to secondary picketing.

Mr. Mellor: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement made it clear that much of what has happened over the past few years on the picket lines has always been unlawful, and that the law has not been enforced. Is it not the case that there has been disorder outside football grounds that has been dealt with by the police with the normal weight of the criminal law, while the same sort of disorder outside factories has been tolerated? Should not the criminal law be applied equally to both cases?

The Attorney-General: The law has been clear for a number of years. I pay tribute to the TUC for the guidelines that it laid down last year, which were similar to those that I have set out today. My regret is that those guidelines are no longer being observed by trade unionists, although they are perfectly clear. On individual cases, it is rather like comparing the sentences between two cases. Unless one knows all the facts, it is difficult to take a firm view.

Mr. Anderson: As the Attorney-General says that the law has been clear for a number of years, what, with all respect to him, is the purpose of today's announcement? It neither adds to nor detracts from one's knowledge of the existing law. Does it not rest essentially on the fact that a decision whether to prosecute in an individual case rests upon the judgment of a chief constable on the question whether it will cause more or less aggravation in a complex situation?

The Attorney-General: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, having read the newspapers, would agree that there is no apparent agreement on the interpretation of the criminal law. I felt

that it was useful to make the position clear.

Mr. Mates: In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his lucid statement of the law as it stands, may I ask him to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a full copy of his statement is put into the hands of every chief constable in the land as soon as possible? Does he not agree that far from exerting pressure on chief constables during this confused time it is important that they should all be absolutely clear about their rights and duties under the law, so that it can be enforced firmly and impartially?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it will form part of a Home Office circular.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for making the law clear by repeating what I said last year. I agree that each case has to be judged on its merits. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what are the special doubts, to which he has referred several times, that led him to make the statement?

The Attorney-General: The newspapers often influence the view of the public, and if one reads them it appears, for example, that lorries may be stopped by the pickets from entering works. They express a view that an excessive number of pickets is not contrary to the law and cannot be interfered with by the police. Those are two typical examples of the way in which the law is misinterpreted. The criminal law is sufficient to cover the various offences that have been demonstrated by the pickets over a number of years.

Sir Bernard Braine: If the criminal law is adequate, why are some chief officers of police expressing doubt and anxiety, and saying that the law should be strengthened? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that his statement will remove those fears? To put the position in perspective, bearing in mind the widespread anxiety across the country, will he say why chief police officers are to be seen by the Home Secretary tomorrow—after this statement—and why they were not seen before?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no power to require chief constables or chief officers to see him. It is at the request of the association that the meeting takes place tomorrow.
My hon. Friend has proved my point by demonstrating the doubts expressed by police officers. That is why I have put into a clear and unmistakable form what the criminal law is on picketing.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Attorney-General realise that what he intends to do will exacerbate on a grand scale the existing position? Does he know that on the 1 o'clock television news Mr. David Basnett gave his opinion on behalf of the general council, and that he described Government proposals as a re-run, in slow motion, of the Industrial Relations Act 1971? He pleaded with the Government to arrive at a consensus because, he said, it would result in the gaoling of trade unionists, with all the ills that would flow from that.

The Attorney-General: If ever one wanted proof that my statement was necessary, the hon. Gentleman's question is proof.

Mr. Kershaw: May I bring my right hon. and learned Friend back to the issue? What Britain finds intolerable is that what the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) calls "legal intimidation" is getting away with it? Will he remind his colleagues that something must be done about that?

The Attorney-General: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I assure him that there is no need to remind my colleagues about that.

Mr. Heffer: In view what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, is it not clear that most of the contributions from the Government Benches have been criticisms of the police? The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained what the law is now. Will he take into consideration the fact that when workers are involved in an industrial dispute they hope to win that dispute? The attitude of solidarity between workers, especially workers in other industries, to help their fellow workers is a fundamental feeling. I have the greatest sympathy with workers who are involved in disputes. Is

the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would be much better engaged in settling disputes rather than displaying the attitude that we have been witnessing?

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman subscribed to the guidelines on picketing that were issued by the TUC a year ago.

Mr. Heifer: Of course I did.

The Attorney-General: If he did—he assures the House that he did—it is a great shame that he is not vociferous in saying that the guidelines should be followed at the various sites that are being picketed.

Mr. Amery: In view of newspaper reports this morning, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that his statement fully supports and in no way differs from the speech made during the weekend by the Lord Chancellor?

The Attorney-General: Perhaps my statement was more detailed. However, there is nothing that contradicts in any way what my right hon. and noble Friend said.

Mr. Stallard: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read reports in today's newspapers that some chief police officers are advocating the use of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) 1978 Act against pickets in industrial disputes? Will he assure the House that the Government have no intention of extending that Act into the industrial world?

The Attorney-General: I have seen no such report, and I have heard no mention of it.

Mr. Moate: As the Lord Chancellor has said that what happened at Had-field's clearly involved breaches of the criminal law, and as certain trade union leaders have stated their intention of doing to Sheerness Steel what was done to Hadfield's, surely it must be right for chief constables to feel that they have the power, clearly established on a proper legal basis, to prevent excessive numbers gathering to create further breaches of the criminal law? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that chief constables have the power to prevent excessive numbers gathering and to ensure that such events do not recur?

The Attorney-General: One of the matters about which there are some doubt was an excessive number of pickets. I hope that my statement will resolve these doubts and make the police aware of the powers that they have in those circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: As the law is so simple, and as it has been expressed as such by three successive Attorneys-General, would it not be better if people stopped demanding tougher penalties and tougher laws and allowed the police to administer on the spot the law as it now is?

The Attorney-General: The demand for tougher penalties and tougher action has arisen because people did not realise how effective the criminal law is. That was one of the purposes of my statement.

Mr. Stokes: My right hon. and learned Friend has assured us that chief constables know what the law is. Is he aware that what worries the public is whether chief constables have the means to enforce the law? In view of the disgraceful violence of last week, why, for instance, were the special patrol groups not used?

The Attorney-General: As I understand it—this was definitely the position in South Yorkshire—the resources were quite adequate to deal with the situation.

Mr. Leighton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that there is a clear distinction between picketing, where numbers are restricted, and demonstrations, which are something quite separate and legitimate?

The Attorney-General: Too often picketing has turned into a demonstration. That is where the problem arises. A picket that is sufficient peacefully to persuade and to communicate does not need 1,000 or even 100 people. In my view it is a demonstration when we end up with 500 or 1,000 people.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while the police have an outstanding reputation for impartiality the law places them in serious difficulties? Does he accept that the power and abuse of the closed shop enables pickets to intimidate those who seek to carry on their proper business and

to undertake their work? Will he, together with his right hon. Friends, consider further amendments to the law on the closed shop as well as on picketing?

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we must never underestimate the difficulties that the police have, especially in situations such as those to which reference has been made. Those situations have been unlike some of the demonstrations and parades with which they have to deal.
The closed shop or the loss of the union card arises only in circumstances in which the person who is threatening the loss of the card is not able to enforce its loss. If the rules of the union permit the loss of the card, that would be a course that could be taken. If the rules do not permit the card to be withdrawn, the person who suffers its loss in such circumstances will have his remedy in the courts.

Mr. English: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather plaintive in his answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that he should have more political support on both sides of the House. Does he not think that as a junior Minister he should stop trying to steal the thunder of the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and Employment, who are willing to be properly cross-questioned before Select Committees? Does he agree that he should stop issuing statements on the Floor of the House when he knows that he cannot be properly cross-questioned on them? Does he not think that he should cease to be the only Minister, apart from his deputy, who refuses to allow Select Committees to cross-question him on his statements?

The Attorney-General: The way in which the hon. Gentleman manages to find every opportunity, whether relevant or not to the matter that we are discussing, to get at me about that is almost a miracle.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was kind to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention was not relevant, but I thought that I would let him complete his statement.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If my right hon. and learned Friend is correct and the police have powers to limit the number of pickets, would it not be helpful if the police and trade union leaders were to meet, when they expected difficulty, to agree among themselves on the number of pickets that should be sent to a dispute? Would it not assist if trade union leaders and the police were to come to such agreements? That would demonstrate whether the trade unions want to make an impact through peaceful picketing or through demonstrations.

The Attorney-General: Anything that will enforce and promote peaceful picketing is desirable. If responsible trade union officials with senior officers of police can between them decide what is a peaceful number that is not excessive, that will encourage peaceful picketing and make breaches of the peace less likely.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his statement makes clear that the law is entirely adequate to deal with the existing position? Does he agree that the law will never solve industrial disputes and that bitterness in the dispute is being generated by the Government? The Government are making militants out of moderates. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the basis of the dispute is the criminal neglect by the Secretary of State for Industry and the Prime Minister, and the rest of her cronies, in not bringing the steel dispute to an amicable and decent conclusion, which could be done in moments if the Government would show some sense?

The Attorney-General: It is rather sad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. The questions before it had been devoted to the matter about which I was speaking. The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, it has.

The Attorney-General: I am seeking to explain to the House my view of the criminal law on picketing. The solving of industrial disputes does not have a bearing on the powers of the police and the duties of those who picket.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Most members of the public would regard what happened outside Hadfield's as a demonstration and

not a peaceful picket. Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the extent to which the leaders of trade unions can recruit members of unions other than those involved in the dispute and pay them and be within the law?

The Attorney-General: As one looks at the guide—I come back to that because it has so much in common with the criminal law—one finds that it is laid down, as I recollect it, that one trade union in a dispute should not be involved with another union that comes to its aid without the union in dispute seeking that aid. When the situation goes far beyond that—where assistance is provided not at the request of the trade union concerned, and against its wishes—that is another matter, which will have to be considered when we look, for example, at the issue of excessive numbers.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House thanks him for making his statement even though it repeats the law as it stands? Are he and his right hon. Friends aware that it is unfair to put the police in the position in which they now find themselves? The police are having to bear the brunt of a policy that could be overcome overnight if only the Government would test out the trade unions by allowing the British Steel Corporation to add a further 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. to its offer. The Government should at least give it a trial.

The Attorney-General: Once again we are diverted from the important point. Some people think that it is unfair to put the police in to deal with violent demonstrations. However, that is their job, and they undertake it. They are there to enforce the law and to protect the ordinary citizen. Perhaps, on occasions, they have a very dangerous job and on other occasions and more often they have jobs that they find distasteful, but they carry them out and have done so over the years, to the great admiration of the British people.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's clarification of the law and the support that the Prime Minister gave earlier to the police, but may I tell him that it is a great deal easier to define the law in this place than it is to enforce it on the picket line? Will


he recognise that, far too often, caught between their duty to uphold the right of pickets lawfully to picket and the public to go about their business in peace, the police are placed in an impossible position?

The Attorney-General: I believe that I have made it clear—I hope I did—that the police are in a particularly difficult position. That position has been clearly expressed by my hon. Friend. The police recognise that position and no doubt it will be a matter for discussion with my right hon. Friend at the meeting tomorrow. Ultimately the duty of the police is to enforce and uphold the law. That they have done in the most difficult situations, and they have gained the admiration of us all.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his statement this afternoon not to clarify the bewilderment of the press, which is not an unusual condition, nor to correct press reportage in its muddledness, which is not an unusual situation, but to placate the hard-liners in the Cabinet and the bemused backwoodsmen on the Tory Benches?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement and the subsequent questions have been helpful to ordinary trade union members who are deeply concerned at the conditions in which they find themselves particularly where they are exposed to the unsolicited involvement of other trades unions in their dispute? It was necessary that a statement of this sort should be made so that the views of this House could go out to the country.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think that he is right. There are too many barrack-room lawyers talking about the issues. It is easy for someone who has no knowledge of the law to accept what he is told by someone who is trying to persuade him to break the law without his realising it.

Mr. Homewood: Will the Attorney-General take the opportunity of clarifying to his right hon. and hon. Friends and the public in general that what he said

this afternoon applies to the police and their attitude to the Hadfield's pickets, and that the Hadfield's pickets were not secondary pickets? They were pickets who had been legitimately called out by their trade union.

The Attorney-General: It was quite clearly secondary picketing as we define it, but that is not the point. Whatever the form of picketing, the same rules apply, under the law, to the behaviour of the pickets.

Mr. Latham: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the "Today" programme, broadcast yesterday? Mr. Alan Goodson, chief constable of Leicestershire and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said in that programme that while of course the police would do their duty, picketing was an extremely difficult area for them to be involved in. Will the Attorney-General therefore confirm that when the police are involved in dealing with mass picketing they will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Ministers? Hopefully, they will receive the support of the Opposition leaders as well.

The Attorney-General: I can give that assurance. I can go further, and say that the police have received that backing throughout the dispute.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Attorney-General accept that we are interested in and support the view that there should be no tension between the police and pickets, or, indeed, between the police and any other section of the community, but that we are not sure that a parliamentary statement in response to press stories is the best way of easing tension? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that his statement had the support of his noble Friend the Lord Advocate. Will he make it abundantly clear that he is not changing Scottish law and that it is not the job of the police in Scotland to prosecute? Prosecution there is the job of the procurators fiscal. In order to avoid any doubt that may prevail in the minds of people in Scotland tonight, will the Attorney-General clear up that point?

The Attorney-General: As I recollect, I have not spoken in terms of who prosecutes; I have spoken of the obligations of the police. Of course, a different


situation prevails in Scotland. In this country if there is a serious affray the Director of Public Prosecutions will almost certainly take the case over. My statement was seen by the Lord Advocate and he agreed to it. That is why I said what I did.

Mr. Cormack: As there has been a general welcome for the clarification given to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he consider inviting the leaders and general secretaries of all the trade unions to a special meeting so that he may explain the law to them?

The Attorney-General: It is a tempting prospect, but it is not one for me to undertake.

Mr. John Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm to the House that he has not had one request from chief constables in Great Britain to clarify or restate the law relating to criminal activity on picket lines? Will he reject the criticisms of his hon. Friends that the constabulary of this country is not carrying out its duty and will he point out to his hon. Friends that though there have been one or two arrests and subsequent prosecutions for criminal activity on picket lines, the overwhelming majority of pickets are peaceful and law-abiding citizens?

The Attorney-General: There are many occasions on which a small picket carries out its function properly. It is able to communicate and peacefully persuade. Quite often faced with a small picket, lorry drivers and others intending to go into a works will stop and discuss the matter and then make up their minds whether they wish to go on. It is only when there is massive picketing, with all the shouting, jeering and everything else, that the atmosphere changes. It is in those circumstances that the criminal law begins to play its part. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are any number of pickets whose activities never hit the headlines, but they achieve their purpose. Those who meet them are able to communicate with them and make up their minds what to do.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this dilemma conceals a much more fundamental contradiction? Can any recognisable system of the rule of law long

endure when significant and influential leaders of economic society are widely encouraged to behave on the basis that the wealth of particular groups in the country can be enhanced by destroying the wealth of society as a whole?

The Attorney-General: That is a wider political matter. I am concerned with the actual enforcement of the law.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General accept that the House would much prefer to hear from him a statement of what the law is rather than hear—with growing frequency—statements from chief constables throughout the country on what they think the law should be?

The Attorney-General: There is no doubt—thinking particularly of the written evidence given by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—that it is a sensible thing for those concerned in administering the law that if they have ideas that they think might improve the law they should express them. This is how the law develops. Similarly, if the hon. Member feels strongly that the law is in some way inadequate he will no doubt make use of his membership of this House to express his views. Chief constables have the same right as anyone else to express their views.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I agree that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement will do a great deal to restore lost confidence among the public, and to restore the public's confidence in the fact that the law is adequate as it stands, but does he realise that that restored confidence can soon be eroded if scenes which took place at Hadfield's are repeated elsewhere and if no penalties are visited upon those who commit the offences?

The Attorney-General: Any law which is so frequently broken without any punishment being inflicted upon those who break it becomes a bad law, which is unenforceable. That is one of the reasons why I have made the statement, not only to clarify the law but to seek the support of all members of the public, pickets as well, to uphold the law in the future.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the Attorney-General aware that the only doubt introduced by his statement was in


relation to his assertion that there was no criminal immunity under the 1974 Act and that that was in contradiction to the view of the Law Lords in the case of Hunt v. Broome? Perhaps I can put the argument in a practical form. If a person attends outside someone else's place of work in order peacefully to picket, and does no more than that, is such a person in breach of the criminal law now, and will he be in breach of the criminal law if clause 14 of the Employment Bill is passed?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman misquotes me. I used my words with some care. I said that I must emphasise that the law on picketing does not in any real way change the criminal law. So far as I can see, the only way in which the immunities given in the existing law on picketing changes the criminal law is that it permits an obstruction of the highway. That is not a serious obstruction. The law permits one to stand on the pavement or in the road outside the place of work where ordinarily one would not be permitted to do so because the highway is meant for passing and repassing. That, I think, is the limit. It is only to that extent that the immunity would be removed if clause 14 became effective.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If those hon. Members who have been rising will be brief, I shall do my best to call them all.

Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion No. 428? If he has not, will he please look at it? It has been tabled by six Labour Members. Does he agree that perhaps one of the most useful things which the House could do today would be to send a message to the police from both sides of the House stating that we support them in the difficult job that they are trying to do? When my right hon. and learned Friend has had a look at that early-day motion, will he perhaps seek support for it from both Front Benches?

The Attorney-General: I have not seen it, but I have seen a report in the press about it. I hope that, as a result of my statement and the debate that we have had, there will be an indication that there is widespread support in the

House for the police. There certainly is on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: In view of some of the interventions of the Attorney-General's hon. Friends, and some of the wilder press stories today, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it absolutely plain that it would be constitutionally obnoxious, and a disaster for industrial relations, if his statement were to be taken as encouraging chief constables to crack down on those exercising the right to picket?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, as I am sure he did, with care to what I said, he would have realised that I made no such suggestion either in my statement or in the answers that I have given.

Mr. Gummer: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rule of law depends on the support of all of us, and that the position of the police becomes intolerable unless they have the support of all hon. Members? Is it not surprising that we have not had a public statement of support for the police in this difficult situation from the Leader of the Opposition and his Front Bench?

The Attorney-General: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I would go a little further and add not only support for the police but condemnation of illegal picketing.

Mr. Marlow: Is it legal, intimidatory or lawful intimidation to take down the personal details and particulars of a lorry driver with a view to withdrawing his union card, thereby throwing him out of work? Furthermore, what advice would my right hon. and learned Friend give to a lorry driver who does not want to stop at a picket line and the picket does not get out of the way?

The Attorney-General: Each of those events must be decided upon the facts of the case. If the union rules permit it, if the union has called the driver out and if it permits his card to be withdrawn, unfortunately, under the present law, that card can be withdrawn. If the rules do not permit it and the card is withdrawn, a driver will have a civil remedy in the courts.

Mr. Budgen: As my right hon. and learned Friend asserts that the criminal


law has frequently been broken recently by people on picket lines, has he any information that the chief constables are giving priority to the collection of evidence so that those who break the law in this way may be prosecuted?

The Attorney-General: I have no knowledge of that. It is not within the usual scope of my knowledge. But no doubt it is one of the matters that my right hon. Friend will be discussing at his meeting tomorrow with leaders of the police forces.

Mr. Michael Brown: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it is a criminal offence for a union to extort money from someone in return for allowing him to cross the picket line in order to carry on his business? That is a threat. While I recognise that the law is as it stands, surely we must concern ourselves with the threats that are being used in connection with the closed shop.

The Attorney-General: If money is extorted in order to allow someone to do something which in law he is absolutely entitled to do, that would be illegal extortion.

Mr. James Callaghan: No doubt the Attorney-General recognises that any criticism which has emerged of the failure to administer the law in this difficult area has not come from the Opposition Benches. If there has been any, it has been implicitly by the Lord Chancellor, who has appeared to criticise the police service, and it has come more expressly from some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends. There is no disposition on the Labour Benches to criticise the actions of the police, who have support in this difficult area, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who represents the Police Federation, said. If the police have shown restraint, as they have done, is it not because they recognise the difficulty of trying to administer the law where large bodies of men who, rightly or wrongly, feel indignant about the situation gather together to express their views about it? My own attitude on this matter has been made quite clear on a number of occasions both last week and this week.
As a result of all this discussion, has not the Attorney-General come to the conclusion that if the rule of law is being

placed in some jeopardy, and if the police service is being placed in an impossible position, there is a responsibility upon the Government not just to deal with the symptoms of picketing but to deal with the fundamental issue, namely, how the steel strike is to be resolved? Is there not a responsibility upon the Government to intervene in this matter now and to bring the two sides together in order to solve the fundamental issue instead of scratching about on the question of picketing?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman talks about support for the police. The police would have been helped much more if he and his colleagues had emphasised even once—and, much better, more often—what the duties and obligations placed upon pickets were so that the police could lend their weight to those who wished to picket peacefully and discourage those who wanted to break the law. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rule of law is placed in jeopardy and that it is the responsibility of the Government to change that. As I understand it, he is really saying that we must surrender.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted many times from the TUC guide. Is he not aware of the support that has been given to it by Labour Members, when it was negotiated, at a time when some of his right hon. Friends were pouring scorn on it a year ago, when we entered into the agreement? Is he not aware of paragraphs 13, 14, 17 and 18 in the guide, which we ourselves negotiated with the trade unions, some of which he has repeated this afternoon?
We want full support for the code. Indeed, last night I called for it myself, not for the first time, to anybody who happened to be watching or listening. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is part of a much wider contract with the trade unions? If the trade unions are to be invited to give their full support to this matter, they should not be shown the door of No. 10 Downing Street and shut outside on all the other economic and financial issues. Is not the Prime Minister failing to show a proper sense of responsibility in this matter?

The Attorney-General: That was a rather belated political intervention by the Leader of the Opposition. The proposals formed part of a White Paper or joint statement issued in February last year. It contained a number of useful aids to peaceful picketing. I have no recollection that we poured scorn on it. [Interruption.]. The right hon. Gentleman made two interventions. Now he seeks to make a third from a seated position.
I find interesting, but absolutely unacceptable, the fact that, while we have the present troubles, none of the support that the Opposition were prepared to give to their joint paper last year is repeated now.

FRONT-BENCH SPEECHES

Mr. English: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would take under advisement the events of yesterday. After some discussion the House resolved that you should have the power to decide that between 7 pm and 9 pm on Second Reading debates we could make 10-minute speeches. That was intended to allow more Back Benchers to speak in such debates. Yesterday two Front Benchers spoke in that period. That meant that for 20 minutes Back Benchers were precluded from doing so. That would not matter—but for the fact that it meant that there were six Front-Bench speakers in yesterday's debate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter. The power of selection is one of the basic powers of the Chair. It has long been customary for a debate to be opened by two Front-Bench Members and closed by two Front-Bench Members. Often, in a repetition of yesterday's circumstances, a home affairs Minister might open a debate and a Welsh Minister close it. However, that did not happen yesterday. There were six Front-Bench speeches in the whole period. If that practice is repeated, the time of Back Benchers is eroded.
I do not ask for an answer now, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am willing to give an answer now.
The House knows that I always deprecate having to call three Front-Bench speakers from both sides of the

House in a debate. The Front Benches have a good opportunity with the Minister who opens and the Opposition spokesman. They usually take their full time.
I should like to place this on the record. It is fairer to both sides of the House, when there is a third element such as there was yesterday on the Welsh question, for it to be borne in mind who winds up at the end of the day. I hope that the occupant of the Chair will not be put in the position of having to call six Front-Bench speakers in one debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to say that you had to call speakers? Am I not right in saying that Mr. Speaker and other occupants of the Chair are entitled to do exactly as they wish? Would not it be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House if the occupant of the Chair did not call the Front-Bench speakers? Then everyone would be happy.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. On two previous occasions I exercised that authority and discretion. I indicated to the usual channels that if more than two Front-Bench speakers rose to speak I would not call them. However, yesterday I felt that there were special factors. I want the House to know that I deprecate calling six Front-Bench spokesmen in a debate.

Mr. English: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the reasons for your action. It is worth putting on the record that the Front Benchers concerned were not as courteous as you were. They chose to speak for one hour and eight minutes in the first case, for 50 minutes in the case of those who replied, and for 20 minutes in the case of those in between. They could easily have rationed out the time between them, but did not choose to do so.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 2) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the first major debate on Supply will be abbreviated.

INSURANCE POLICY HOLDERS PROTECTION

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the effect of certain exclusion clauses on insurance policies; to remove the right of insurers to avoid liability under policies for non-disclosure of certain information not sought by them; and otherwise to amend the law so as to provide further protection for insurance policy holders.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is not bound to take his 10 minutes, but he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Janner: I shall take much less than 10 minutes.
I seek leave to introduce the Insurance Policy Holders Protection Bill which, however brief, may nevertheless be important to literally millions of people. These include Members of Parliament who may one day have cause to bring a claim on an insurance policy, only to find that they do not have the protection which they thought that they had acquired.
Insurance policies, which are excluded from the effects of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, are all too often misleading in their titles, insidious in their content and wicked in the power given to insurers to avoid liability where the insured does not answer questions which he is not asked.
As to the titles, I have only to refer to "all-risks" policies which so many of us have and which certainly do not cover all risks; and to the "comprehensive" policy which comprehends what it says it does—and sometimes rather less.
As to the contents, the warranties contained in the policies are in language which most people do not read—and even if they read a clause they do not or cannot understand it.
The disclosure rule is archaic and wrong. People should not be forced to reveal information which is not sought, and which may not even be relevant to their claim and to lose their rights if they do not reveal it.
Those wrongs have been so obvious that the Law Commission, in its working paper No. 73 on insurance law, last year, denounced nearly all of them. The Law

Commission, which can scarcely be accused of being staffed by the extreme Left wing, regarded these insurance policies in the words of judges quoted by it as "all too often shocking", "mean", and "contemptible" and said that the public should be warned against the policies. In this House, it is not only possible to warn the public but also to change the rules.
A change may be brought in by removing the exclusion of insurance policies from the Unfair Contract Terms Act. That exclusion should not have been there in the first place. It can have been put in only as a result of powerful pressure by British insurers. That protection of insurers should now be removed and given back to policyholders. They must be entitled to say that the warranty is null and void if it is "unreasonable"; that is all. If it does not "satisfy the test of reasonableness", it should go.
As to the disclosure rule, the suggestions made by the Law Commission are reasonable and simple. The Law Commission suggests that the insured should continue to be subject to a duty of disclosure but that this should be modified and should differ according to whether or not a proposal form has been completed. Where there is no proposal form he should be under a duty to disclose those facts which a reasonable man in these circumstances would be bound to disclose; but where he has completed a proposal form the insurer should be taken to have waived the insured's duty in regard to any fact outside the scope of the questions asked. In other words, if they ask a question, they are entitled to a fair, honest and complete answer. If they do not ask it, they should have done.
At the moment, a travel policy, a road traffic policy, a home owner's policy or a life assurance policy—each is very likely to mislead and not to provide the peace of mind which the insured believes he has bought and whereby has paid for. These policies have deserved the denunciations of the Consumers Association and, last week, of Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading. Reputable insurers say they do not often rely on these policies, so they should not object to the Bill.
The general secretary of the British Insurance Association said last week that


ultimately the consumer gets what he pays for. In this area, he often not only does not get what he pays for but he may not even get what he believes he has paid for.
In these circumstances, I have pleasure in seeking leave to introduce this Bill, on an all-party basis, within less than half the time allocated to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Eric S. Heifer, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Edward Lyons, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. John Sever and Mr. Frank R. White.

INSURANCE POLICY HOLDERS PROTECTION

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to remove the effect of certain exclusion clauses on insurance policies; to remove the right of insurers to avoid liability under policies for nondisclosure of certain information not sought by them; and otherwise to amend the law so as to provide further protection for insurance policy holders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Mr. Speaker: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for his cooperation.

BENEFIT PAYMENTS (SUB-POST OFFICES)

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the importance of the sub-post office network in the life of urban and rural communities, is against any moves by the Government which could weaken the system of weekly payments to pensioners, mothers and other benefit recipients through these offices.
This issue has caused a great deal of controversy. There has been very little information on it. If we are to believe what was discussed last night by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and not least their amendment today, the pressure which has been exerted from this side of the House—and, I acknowledge, from the other side—has had some effect upon the Government.
The leakage which came from the rain of proposals, and the silence of the Secretary of State, until finally Mr. Norman Taylor, on behalf of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, wrote to Members of Parliament and, not least, to the Prime Minister, receiving a reply from the Prime Minister that the matter would have serious consideration, are all indications that this subject is of major importance and involves other issues than the matter of public expenditure, important as that is.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The right hon. Gentleman says "silence" but is he aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary answered at some length a written question on the subject on 18 January? During Question Time when the right hon. Gentleman was present, on 29 January, my hon. Friend answered a whole series of questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and explained exactly what point we had reached. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government remained silent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Orme: The exchanges in the House and the answers that the hon. Lady gave did not give comfort to some Members. In fact, people were more disturbed following her answers than before because she tried to deflect attention from the issue, and no assurances, such as had been asked for, were given to the House.
The payment of benefits in this country has traditionally been on a weekly basis and people have become accustomed to this. The main benefits are paid to pensioners and mothers in receipt of child benefit. I stress that these two large groups are receiving long-term benefits and are, therefore, distinctly different from those receiving short-term benefits, such as sickness and unemployment benefit. About 70 per cent. of all social security payments are made through sub-post offices. The network now consists of 20,000 post offices throughout the country.
While I am on the subject of post offices, may I say that I think it is rather strange that in the so-called consultations that have taken place Sir William Barlow, chairman of the Post Office, had, at least before 31 January this year, not been consulted. It is rather odd that on a major proposal such as this, on which Sir Derek Rayner intimated that he wanted widespread consultations with the Secretary of State, Sir William Barlow was not consulted.
The network of 20,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom gives a basic service to the community. I do not think there is a similar service to the community in any other modern State where post offices and sub-post offices play such a key role. I am talking now of both the rural and urban post offices. The benefits they give go far beyond the mere paying out of the weekly benefit, because when someone goes to a post office not only does he or she receive the benefit, but it is possible to be given advice on changes in legislation, and leaflets are available about benefits. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) may laugh, but I think he would acknowledge that the friendly post office is something to be cherished.
Pensioners, mothers and disabled people can also purchase from a post office national savings stamps and stamps for television licences and many other things. A vital service is thus given to

the community. The help and advice which is sought by the public and given by the staff, who know many of their customers personally, is very welcome indeed.

Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? He did refer to me—

Mr. Orme: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me and allow me to get on with my speech in the interests of other Members.
There has been a reduction in recent years, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House know, in the number of post offices. A few years ago, the figure was about 26,000. Today it is nearer 21,000. The Post Office was investigated in 1977, as a result of which we had the Carter report, to which I should like briefly to refer. On page 87 of the report, paragraph 11.2 says:
The scale-payment system has provided Britain with the convenience of a dense network of post offices; in contrast the United States, with 17 times the area, has only 30 per cent. more outlets.
In paragraph 11.7 the question is asked:
Could the social security payments be made in a different way, for instance by cheques cashable at commercial banks or at shops? This is thought to be an inferior alternative: most recipients want cash, weekly, obtainable without extra charge at a place near their homes. The post office network provides much better for suburbs and rural areas than the banks, and shops would probably want some return for cashing cheques;
(b) Is the present post office network about right, from the point of view of the Departments which use agency services? The answer is Yes: there is no active demand for a bigger network, but the intensity of the protests at post office closures suggests that a significantly smaller network would be regarded as inadequate".
The report continues:
No one was able to see any advantage from such a transfer; the Post Office has long experience of running the system, and it would be wasteful to upset the administration in this way".
That was the unanimous conclusion of the Carter committee which made a thorough investigation into the Post Office.
We are told by the sub-post offices and by Mr. Norman Taylor that if the payment of benefits were transferred from sub-post offices that could lead to the


closure of about 3,000 sub-post offices throughout the United Kingdom. That would have a detrimental effect upon the network and could also have repercussions well beyond the 3,000 sub-post offices.
What would it mean? It is not just a question of the loss of money earned by the sub-post offices to which they are entitled. It would mean severe inconvenience for pensioners, the disabled and mothers, many of whom might have to travel a long distance to get their benefit. They would also find that the post offices to which they had to travel were overcrowded.

Mr. Michael Latham: rose—

Mr. Orme: I am afraid I cannot give way. I am not being discourteous; I just want to be fair to hon. Members.
I made an investigation in my constituency, which is an urban area, and I found that the post offices were very crowded. People had to queue for their benefits. I have found that the pressure has been for more post offices, not fewer. Great regret has been expressed when sub-post offices have been closed for economic reasons. To break up the network would not be in the interest of the people we represent.
On the question of fortnightly or monthly payments, unless there was a huge transfer of payments into bank accounts, which is unlikely, post offices would still have to carry the same amount of money. If the recipient has a bank account, it is likely to be a post office savings account, and those accounts too would be affected by the widespread closures of sub-post offices. I am talking not about people with bank accounts who can have benefits paid into those accounts but about a large percentage of the people who live in rural and urban areas who need their benefits weekly, who spend the money weekly and do not have bank accounts. I am talking about a service. If that service were transferred, great inconvenience and expense would be caused.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech, I am sure

that later he will be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Sir Derek Rayner, the joint managing director of Marks and Spencer, is carrying out this exercise, which is one of 29 exercises covering Government Departments. I believe another 39 projects are also in hand. The Labour Party has no objection to efficiency in the public service, but I feel that the House is entitled to more information. Will the Secretary of State say whether the Rayner reports will be published and made available to hon. Members?
Sir Derek Rayner has been seconded by the Government to make these investigations. He represents a nationally known store which provides what the customer wants and works on the principle that the customer is right. We are entitled to ask Sir Derek what consultations he has had with the customers in this area.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am anticipating what I shall say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I catch your eye, but I must make clear that studies of these matters are done by officials in the Department, for which Ministers take responsibility. Advice is available from Sir Derek Rayner, who has great expertise in these matters, but he does not undertake the studies and does not take responsibility for them. We do.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State should not criticise us for mentioning Sir Derek Rayner. His secondment received a great deal of publicity and it was said that his investigations would result in a saving in public expenditure. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is downgrading the task which Sir Derek Rayner has been set. I am not making a personal attack on Sir Derek; indeed, I pay tribute to the company of which he is joint managing director. All I ask is that he should treat the customers of the sub-post offices in the way he treats the customers in his store.
No doubt reference will be made to Labour's experiment of paying unemployment benefit on a fortnightly basis with the agreement of the claimant. I emphasise that that represents only a tiny proportion of payments made, it is a short-term benefit and the sub-postmasters raised no objection to the experiment.


There is a world of difference between that short-term benefit and the long-term benefit received by pensioners, mothers and the disabled.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No, I cannot give way.
I am also disturbed by what Mr. Norman Taylor says on page 5 of his letter:
We have received reports from sub-postmasters of beneficiaries, having been advised to ask for weekly benefit to be paid, either being told it was not possible or being told that … they would have to attend at the unemployment office weekly to obtain it. Faced with the extra expense to obtain their money they have reluctantly had to accept fortnightly payment".
I feel sure that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us about the working of the system. I mention that passage from the letter to show the problems which would be created if beneficiaries felt that they were under pressure to transfer payment. Pensioners, for example, have enough to put up with without pressure of that type.
We have all had correspondence on this issue. We all hear of hon. Members who have had several letters on a particular issue and, though we believe them, we sometimes doubt the number.

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Mr. Orme: We have all had correspondence on the present issue. I will quote, very briefly, two letters from my constituency. The first reads:
Dear Sir, We would like our pension to be left as it is weekly, as it is not wise for old people to have money in the house these days".

Neither should they be expected to carry larger sums from the post office.
The second letter came from a mother in my constituency. It reads:
Dear Sir, I was absolutely disgusted to read the current notice in my local post office. With four children I need my family allowance to help me manage through the week.
—and she needs it weekly. That is a cry from the heart of a mother with four children who depends upon child benefit being paid weekly as at present.
Let me deal first with the pensioner. It is not propaganda to say that pensioners are genuinely worried. They are worried not only about the threat to local

sub-post offices but about carrying two weeks' benefit or more away from the post office at any one time, as was evidenced in that letter.
The letter from the mother highlights an important aspect. If the benefit were to be paid monthly, economic problems would arise because of lack of weekly finance. The House agreed that a mother should have child benefit paid to her as a right, so that she could use it. In a happy family there will be no problem if it is transferred to a bank. Unfortunately, we are dealing not with happy families all the time, but with mothers who have to eke out their money during the week and they may possibly be exploited by their husbands.
Let us consider a mother who has three or four children. If she draws the benefit monthly she will receive £50 or £60. What if she has a feckless husband who is drinking or gambling and who says "You can give me £20 or £30 of that"? That would mean an absolute reduction in the standard of living and rights of that mother and those children. That is what we must guard against. That is why the House decided, after a great deal of debate and pressure from outside, that child benefit should be paid to the mother as of right.
We are not dealing with the mother who can afford to leave the money in the bank for six or eight weeks and perhaps use it in some other way. We are dealing with the working-class mother who has to go to the post office weekly to collect her child benefit. In many instances child benefit is a lifeline to a family. I do not think that any hon. Member can deny that. We all have constituents who face these problems.
With the current rate of inflation, the threat of the increased cost of school meals, and payment for school transport that the House is sanctioning, it would be laughable, if it were not so serious, to suggest that this payment should be made monthly. To suggest it at present, when people are struggling, would be entirely wrong.
This issue also gives rise to wider social implications. We are seeing in our society the continued transfer from the small to the large. It is happening in local government and with public transport. There is a reduction of facilities and offices are


being moved into the next town, which can be 10 or more miles away. There is a need to travel, and therefore the cost of that travel must be taken into account if a person does not have personal transport. All that adds up to making life more complicated and more expensive.
I will give a parallel example to the Secretary of State. He is aware of the present argument about pharmacies and the difficulties that the closure of chemists' shops throughout the country will cause. Pharmacies are being transformed into supermarkets and multiple stores. If we continue along this road the same will happen to sub-post offices. The supermarkets and multiple stores are excellent for many things, but they are not capable of being turned into part-chemists' shops or part-sub-post offices. They would not be able to give the type of service that one receives at present. Therefore, this is an important issue.
Reading the reports last night—one can only go by reports; I am not saying that they are absolutely accurate but perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us—I saw that the Secretary of State assured his Back Benchers that rural sub-post offices would not be affected in any way. Does that also apply to urban sub-post offices? I think that we are entitled to know.
Will not the transfer of benefit to a bank—which the right hon. Gentleman sanctions—mean that the post office network would become more expensive and that costs for other services would have to be increased to compensate for that transfer? I am thinking of the cost of the savings unit and the provision of licences that are presently dealt with in post offices. Will it not also mean that the cost of rates, heating and rent will have to be met by the Government?
What about a pensioner or a mother with a small bank account who, for instance, has a credit balance of below £100? There would be a charge, would there not, to that claimant of 20p a time if the account was below £100 in credit—which is what the banks require at present? That would be a large charge, which would be transferred from the Government to the claimant. That would be absolutely wrong. Is it not a fact that the cost per unit going to sub-postmasters

is approximately 2·5p? I understand that there are three units to a pension, so that amount will become 7·5p for a pensioner. Does the Secretary of State think that it is possible to obtain a cheaper and more efficient service, as well as the social service about which we are now talking?
I heard the Secretary of State this morning mention using sub-post offices for other means, such a the payment of gas and electricity charges. I am sure that he does not want to put the lid on one hornet's nest and take it off another. He would have real problems with the employees in the gas and electricity industries if there were not wide consent to such proposals after consultation, because such a proposal would affect the living standards and jobs of people in those industries.
The Opposition were absolutely right to choose this subject for debate. We know that there is widespread interest in this matter throughout the country and it is surely the purpose of the House to reflect that interest. I think that we have made an overwhelming case for sub-post offices to remain as they are at present.

Mr. Jessel: rose—

Mr. Orme: I remind the House that whilst we have made a great deal of progress with the Government we are not yet home and dry. The motion in the name of the Opposition would finalise the problem and make it clear. There would be no dubiety about the matter. Therefore, I ask the House to vote for the motion at 7 o'clock.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, to leave out from 'communities' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
'insists that the Government, in making any changes in the system of paying pensions and benefits intended to give recipients wider choice as to the method of payment and to save administrative costs, ensures the continuance of that network, welcoming the Government's commitment to explore ways of bringing new business to sub-post offices, for instance through the National Girobank and wider opportunities for the payment of bills'.

The House will have listened with some interest to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) as he made his case in favour of the Opposition motion.
I shall come to our objections to the motion later on. I also hope in the course of my remarks to be able to answer all the questions that he raised.
Let me say at once that I entirely understand why anxieties have arisen about the Government's intentions, particularly on the part of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. I will come in a moment to the way in which the Government's study—which has not yet been published but will be published—came into the public domain, but I fully accept that the information which reached sub-postmasters has caused them to worry about their future. It might be helpful if I can put the whole issue into context and say where the Government stand.
The Government came into office committed to examine the cost and efficiency of the public sector and, wherever possible, to make savings in administration. As the House knows, Sir Derek Rayner was appointed by the Prime Minister to advise the Government in this field in which he has considerable expertise. I stress the word "advise" because, as I said in my intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it is Ministers—the Government—who retain responsibility in the matter. The method adopted was that each Department was asked to select a project for study by a team of officials, whose proposals would in due course be considered by Ministers.
The project identified by my Department was the system of paying social security benefits. Some have asked why we chose this topic. There is a little history which is worth putting on the record. Under the Opposition, a fact which the right hon. Gentleman did not make entirely clear in his speech, the DHSS was considering its future operational strategy for social security. With a system as big as ours, on which nearly a quarter of public expenditure goes and which requires an overall staff of 100,000 to administer, we have to plan major operational changes many years in advance.
One thing that struck the planners at an early stage was how the present system relies heavily on weekly payments by order books cashed over post office counters. It is common knowledge that many would prefer to have their payments paid direct into bank accounts. As more and more people are paid salaries

and occupational pensions monthly, there is a growing trend in society away from weekly payments.
As long ago as 1976—under the previous Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was Minister for Social Security—a joint working party of DHSS officials, the banks and National Giro was set up to consider the possibility of automatic credit transfer of social security benefits into banks and other accounts. It may not have been entirely clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the working party that was set up by his Government concluded that there were no insuperable obstacles to paying benefits by this method and that it would be significantly cheaper.
Indeed, the previous Government went further. They indicated their acceptance in principle of paying benefits directly to bank accounts provided that a number of administrative aspects could be sorted out. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has been assiduous over the years in pressing successive Governments on the matter of paying credit into bank accounts. The House may remember that shortly before the last election on 6 March 1978 my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked the right hon. Member for Salford, West at Question Time:
if he can now announce arrangements for retirement pensions to be paid on request direct into pensioners' bank accounts.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the working party that I have just mentioned. My hon. Friend pressed the matter again and asked:
why do not the Government get on with it? It is now 18 months since I raised the matter with the Minister. What is the reason for the delay?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I am expecting a report by the end of the month…I am much in favour of the principle, and the introduction of such an arrangement would cover child benefit as well as retirement pensions…I hope to make some progress in the near future."—[Official Report, 6 March 1979: Vol. 963, c. 1077–78.]

Mr. Orme: There is a world of difference between those remarks and fortnightly and monthly payments made in the way suggested by the Secretary of State and Sir Derek Rayner.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman would carry more conviction if he had


been frank with the House at the outset of his speech.
We have found that much progress has been made and I pay tribute to the Opposition for that. Therefore, when officials suggested to me in response to the Rayner exercise that it was a proper subject for further study, I had little difficulty in agreeing. Our study has focused attention closely on more precise suggestions for bringing about the changes which our predecessors initiated. [Interruption.] I can understand the indignation of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I do not suppose that he was present at the Question Time during which the remarks to which I have referred were made.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: What the right hon. Gentleman says about the previous Government's preparations is correct. I know because I saw some of the documents. However, the fact that the previous Government anticipated and planned the proposals does not make them right. We would probably have been more successful in stopping that Government from implementing them than Conservative Members will be tonight in stopping the right hon. Gentleman from implementing his proposals.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not intervene in the sensitive matter of the quarrel between the hon. Member for Ormskirk and his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I am much in favour of the principle."— [Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 1078.]
It is typical of the Opposition that when they see a chance of taking political advantage they quickly—oh so quickly—forget their past.
I shall remind the House of the scale of the operation of our social security system. About 1,000 million payments are made each year by the social security system to about 18 million people and their dependants. The administrative costs of the entire exercise amount to no less than three-quarters of a billion pounds—£750 million—a year. One third of that, about £250 million, is the cost of paying out the benefits—putting the cash in the hands of the people. That is roughly equivalent to the cost of building five big

new hospitals every year. That is the measure of the cost of paying benefits.
The more order books that are issued, the more it costs the taxpayer. In a system that has been virtually unchanged for a number of years, it seemed to us that even small improvements in efficiency could save the taxpayer worthwhile sums. It also seemed to us that the present methods offered little choice to the public and that we could do better. Officials were asked to conduct their review. Like the Rayner studies, fundamental questions about the way things are done were asked, such as, "Why is the work being done in the way that it is? Could the arrangements be made simpler and more efficient? Have the arrangements changed with time to reflect changing conditions in society?" Underlying the whole operation was the question, "If we were starting from scratch now, what systems would be devised?" When such questions are asked, interesting and perhaps disquieting facts emerge.
The overwhelming number of benefit payments—something like 95 per cent.—are made weekly despite the fact that almost half the working population, over half of working mothers and almost all occupational pensioners, are now paid monthly. As the House knows, the Department of Employment changed from paying unemployment benefit weekly to fortnightly in September 1978. The individual has a choice: he can register for work fortnightly and collect a fortnightly payment. If he wants a weekly payment, he must sign on weekly. That is the choice. It does not appear to have caused great difficulty although about 95 per cent. of those in receipt of unemployment benefit are now paid fortnightly.
The study also found that paying benefits by direct credit into banks, including the National Giro bank and other accounts every four weeks would be considerably less expensive to the taxpayer than even the cheapest of the existing four-weekly or weekly payment arrangements. I shall give an indication of how much more efficient it would be. The annual cost of making payments weekly by order book is about £10, whereas payment by direct credit into a bank would cost about £2 a year. I must make it clear that I am dealing with a study by


officials and not with any Government decisions.
Although some beneficiaries have their pensions paid by monthly or quarterly order, the order still has to be presented to a bank to be cashed. There is as yet no right to have benefits credited direct to a bank account. It may be all the more surprising that we have made no progress in this direction. The study found that half the adult population now uses an ordinary bank account and about three-quarters of the population has access to a cheque account, savings bank, building society and so on.
Finally, the study found that sickness benefit is already paid fortnightly in 20 per cent. of cases. Mobility allowance is paid four-weekly. About three-quarters of a million retirement and war pensioners are paid monthly or less frequently. Nearly half the mothers already cash their child benefit less frequently than once a week. Indeed, one-third cash it every four weeks or less often.
Against that background, it is perhaps not surprising that the study suggested that benefits might be paid less frequently and that the public should be able to have benefits paid directly into a bank, National Girobank or other account if they so choose. The study also found that that could eventually result in savings of up to £50 million a year at today's prices. However, the study made clear that such savings might not be fully achieved for five years or more.
I shall turn now to the status of the report. The simple fact, and I must make this abundantly clear, is that Ministers have as yet reached no decisions. The report has been in our hands for a matter of weeks only and DHSS Ministers have been discussing it with Sir Derek Rayner, as we were asked to do. As yet, there has been no collective discussion by Ministers of the issues raised by the report, let alone any agreement on how or whether to carry the matter forward. If we decide to go ahead, it will inevitably be a fairly long and drawn out process. At present, all we have is a review that has been conducted by officials; no more. Still less is there any commitment to the details in the report. I referred a moment ago to the saving of £50 million. The House will see, when the public expenditure White Paper is published next month that no credit whatever has been taken

in the figures up to 1983–4—the last year to which the Paper will refer—for these possible savings.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Will the £50 million savings suggested by the report come from savings in the Civil Service, or from savings in post office and sub-post office staff?

Mr. Jenkin: It will be a question of savings in the overall operation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I wish to give three absolutely clear assurances. The Government will initiate no changes pursuant to this review, until the review has been published. The leading article in The Guardian today is pushing at an open door. It was always our intention to publish the report.
Secondly, the Government will consult widely on the proposals in the report including, of course with the Post Office, representatives of sub-postmasters and with any other interests that may be affected. We wish to consult also representatives of pensioners and other beneficiaries.
Thirdly, there will be no decision to go ahead without a full debate and without the full consent of the House of Commons.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend so early in his speech. When the Government consider what action to take on the report, will they bear in mind that many pensioners go in fear of being robbed of their pension when they take it in the form of cash from post offices? That fear has been justified by the number of robberies. Many pensioners urgently desire to have their pensions paid less frequently and to have them paid direct into bank accounts.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I shall make suggestions with that consideration in mind in a moment.
The impression seems to have got around that the Government have already made decisions and are committed to major changes. That simply is not true. There is no question of any early reforms


or of a fait accompli. Certainly there is no question of our trying to do anything by stealth. I hope that the House will accept that.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Indeed, one of the difficulties faced by the House is that the report has not yet been published. The House is having to consider these matters on the basis of press reports, answers to parliamentary questions—to which I referred in my earlier intervention—and statements such as that which I issued last week.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: Much of the concern turns, of course, on the likely effect of any such changes on the future of the sub-post office network. The right hon. Member for Salford, West made that point clear and I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about sub-post offices. Ministers are fully alive to this problem and have been from the beginning of the study. We know that sub-post offices, particularly in rural areas, but also in suburban areas—I take the right hon. Gentleman's point—provide an essential service to the public. They are often run in conjunction with shops that sell food and other household necessities. If the sub-post office were not on the premises, many of those shops would cease to be viable.
The Government fully accept that any significant closure of sub-post offices would be wholly inconsistent with our aim of sustaining local communities, and the services on which they depend. The review in no way reflects doubts about the quality of the service provided by sub-postmasters under the present system. Hon. Members will know that the Prime Minister made that clear in a letter to Mr. Norman Taylor of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The letter was sent to him last week.
The Prime Minister's father was a sub-postmaster. He ran a sub-post office in conjunction with the shop in Grantham where she spent her youth. Few hon. Members have had more direct personal experience than my right hon. Friend. The village post office is often the meeting place of the community. The postmaster or postmistress is often the friendly adviser of others in the community. From the beginning of the Rayner study Ministers were clear that the post office and sub-postmasters would have to be involved in any consultations from the earliest stage. It was suggested that Sir William Barlow had not been consulted. It is now becoming clear that my officials' early approaches to the Post Office were greeted with some alarm. The fact of this study quickly reached the ears of Sir William Barlow and at a meeting in the West Country last November—of which unfortunately there seems to be no verbatim record—Sir William felt it right to warn his audience in terms that clearly aroused the gravest anxiety among sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: If I may say so, the consequences are to be found in the post bags of virtually every right hon. and hon. Member.
More recently, in response to public anxiety, Sir Derek Rayner was authorised to give interviews to the press and tele, vision on the progress that he was making and how his projects were being tackled The report has not yet been published, although it is the Government's firm intention to do so.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State will be aware that Sir William Barlow gave evidence to a Select Committee this year. He stated categorically that he had had no consultations with the Government on that issue.

Mr. Jenkin: I spoke to Sir William Barlow in a casual meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Some months ago, before Christmas. I should not for one moment describe it as a consultation, but I made it perfectly clear to Sir William Barlow that these were serious proposals that he would do well to take seriously.

Mr. Cryer: They are being seriously opposed.

Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps that remark should be addressed to Sir William Barlow.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that the House will agree that the Government would be failing in their responsibilties if they did not consider very carefully the proposals emerging from the review. We know that there is a growing demand for direct payment into bank accounts. Growing numbers of people are becoming used to budgeting fortnightly or monthly and the great majority of occupational pensions are paid monthly. As part of the study, the Department carried out a market survey. Although these figures have to be treated with caution, it found that about three-fifths of pensioners and four-fifths of mothers said that they would have little difficulty if payments were made fortnightly.
Ministers have made it abundantly clear to officials that some groups, including the very old and the poor—perhaps those on supplementary benefit or in receipt of family income supplement—must be able to continue with weekly payments, if they wish. We also made it clear, and I give this complete assurance to the House—I know that it has not been clear to postmasters—that there is no question of requiring anyone to use a bank account who does not choose, of his own free will, to adopt that method. Anyone who wants to continue to draw cash over the post office counter may do so, although the proposal in the study is that it would be fortnightly rather than weekly for most people.
It is against that background that I turn to the Opposition motion. As the House will recognise, we can entirely accept the sentiment in the opening passage. However, when one turns to the rest of their motion, it seems to me that it is not only wholly inconsistent with what the Labour Government were up to but, far more important, on any reasonable interpretation, it would tie the hands of the present Government by linking the undoubted need to protect the income and ensure the viability of sub-post offices solely to the weekly cash payment of social security benefits. I do not see

how the words that they have carefully chosen could have any other meaning.
It simply cannot be right to argue for the perpetuation of the present system of paying benefits as if it were the only way to protect the income of sub-post offices. If it is possible to give people more choice, save the taxpayer money and at the same time protect the network of sub-post offices, surely the Government must be free to explore the options.
As I read the Opposition's motion, any new option to allow payment by direct credit could be said to weaken the system of weekly payments and, as such, would have to be ruled out. Any move to allow payment at less frequent intervals would equally be ruled out. I do not believe that such a complete bar makes any sense at all. The Government must be allowed to continue their study to see if there are ways of giving wider choice and securing the administrative savings in such a way as to safeguard the position of sub-postmasters.
That may have to be done by looking more widely and seeking other ways. I mention two possibilities but make it clear there could be others. First, there could be much wider use of the National Giro Bank.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: For instance, if pensions were paid by direct credit into a giro account, pensioners would be free to draw cash in the amounts and at the times to suit their own convenience. There is no way under the present system that the pensioner can draw less than the full weekly pension and leave the balance to accumulate. There is no way that a pensioner who does not wish to carry his full week's cash on his person can draw his pension in two tranches. If pensions were paid direct into giro accounts, a pensioner would be entirely free to make a weekly, or, if he chose, an even more frequent visit to the post office to draw out the cash that he would need, and the rest would be safe in his account and not be at risk being stuffed in his mattress or his teapot where it would be at the risk of housebreakers.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If the proposal is that pensions should be drawn every fortnight, what arrangements


will there be so that there is no lag between the time when people finish drawing the old pension and start drawing the new one? That time-lag might cause considerable difficulties to some families.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that. If it were fortnightly and I stress the word "if" —there would be a week in arrears and a week in advance. There would be no gap. My hon. Friend's point is perfectly fair.
A much wider use of the National Giro Bank would bring post offices substantial additional business and therefore commission.
A second possibility concerns the payment of fuel bills. I recognise that there can be no question of moving down that road without the fullest consultation with the energy industries. That goes without saying. At the moment there is a statutory bar in the Post Office Act against nationalised industries using the Post Office on an agency basis, as Government Departments use it. For example, the only way that people can pay gas or electricity bills through the Post Office is by paying them into the industry's giro account, and being charged 20p for the privilege. I believe that there are better ways of helping the public to pay bills which would bring business to post offices.
One possibility that could be explored is the question of fuel stamps. That could well bring additional business. There may be other ways to make use of this most valuable social network of sub-post offices in our towns, villages and suburbs. All these possibilities will have to be explored with the various interests—the Post Office, sub-postmasters and the National Giro Bank—before decisions are taken.
What must be clear is that there can be no question of the Government taking decisions—even if we could persuade the House to accept them—to go ahead with major changes in the system of paying social security benefits if we were not at the same time able to assure sub-post offices of the continuance of the sub-post office network. That does not mean complete ossification—and I hope that no one is suggesting that. Every year some sub-post offices close, but others are opening.
The network of sub-post offices is essential. Of that let there be no doubt. Village communities depend on the services that that network makes possible. The Government are determined to preserve it.
The Government's amendment therefore makes it clear that we must be free to carry forward our study and explore all the options with the Post Office. The Opposition's motion seeks to tie our hands firmly by refusing to countenance any change.
If ever there were a case of the Labour Party living in the past while the Conservative Party is looking to the future, surely this is it. I ask my right hon, and hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I wish to declare an interest. I have held a number of positions with the Post Office, not least a long period as a postal officer serving on post office counters.
I listened to the Secretary of State's speech with fascination and interest. I accept that it is right, indeed it is understandable, that he and the Government should concern themselves with seeking to identify savings in Civil Service manpower and Government administration. But I suggest that the Department of Health and Social Security is not entitled to consider the matter of fortnightly and monthly benefit payments in isolation from the Post Office. Consideration must be given to the impact of the proposals on the lives of elderly pensioners, the disabled, and those who rightly claim family benefits and supplementary benefits.
We are entitled to consider the impact of the proposals on the 21,300 scale payment post offices and the 1,500 Crown post offices which will be affected by the proposals. The Secretary of State said that no final decisions have been made. He said that the decisions will be made by the House, and that consultations are proceeding. I hope that the Secretary of State will give consideration in the discussions to a recent academic report on the subject which was made available last month.
The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the actions of the previous Labour Government in making unemployment benefits payments payable on a fortnightly basis. The report examined the consequences of that procedure. It examined the impact of fortnightly payments of unemployment benefits on the staff of post offices. It reached the conclusion that the effect would be to reduce post office counter staff by 1 per cent.
But, he went on to suggest that if the analysis was carried further, and the whole area of benefit payments was examined—benefits for the elderly, family benefits, supplementary benefits and the whole gamut of supplementary benefits—fortnightly payments would produce a reduction of 17 per cent. in the staffing of post office counters. Monthly payments of such benefits would produce a reduction of 25 per cent. Translated to posts, this academic study indicated that we face the possibility of redundancies on the scale of about 5,000 stall on the counters of Crown post offices and scale payment post offices.
Reference has been made to the signal contribution that scale payment post offices make. Scale payment post offices have been established for a number of reasons. In recent years they have been encouraged to the detriment of the establishment of Crown post offices. That is why there are 21,000 scale payment post offices and 1,500 crown post offices. They have been encouraged because they are cheap, and because scale payment postmasters are not treated generously in terms of salary and remuneration. Some postmasters receive salaries as low as £1,200, while the average payment is about £5,500. Out of that postmasters have to provide money for staffing and for all the essential prerequisites which are involved in providing the service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the Secretary of State paid tribute to the service given by the scale payment post offices. I should like to associate myself with those remarks. I should also like to pay tribute to the service given at Crown post office counters.
In many areas, post offices are an essential part of the fabric of community life. It is too easy to claim that the change envisaged by the Government will

not be forced upon people. The Secretary of State claimed that £50 million would be saved if the proposals were adopted. He cannot have it both ways. If he argues that there will be a potential saving of £50 million, he cannot argue that the system will not be imposed. It will be imposed on elderly pensioners, as it was imposed on those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Secretary of State nods. If he means that, he will create a great deal of anxiety and distress for many elderly pensioners.
When the method of payment for unemployment benefit was changed, the Secretary of State said that it would widen the choice. People receiving unemployment benefit had no choice. The Secretary of State claims that 95 per cent. of people receiving unemployment benefit opted for fortnightly payments. If people sought to exercise a choice and receive weekly payments, they had to go to the employment office. If that obtains for elderly pensioners and disabled people, will the Secretary of State seriously argue that they will be obliged to troop to the local office of the DHSS in order to opt out of fortnightly and monthly payments? That is the natural and logical follow-through of his argument. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. He cannot have the argument both ways.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is descending into fantasy when he talks about people going along to the local office of the DHSS every week. He is talking utter nonsense. The proposal in the report is that payments should be made fortnightly. The Government have made it clear that there are categories, including the very old and the very poor, for whom weekly payments should continue.

Mr. Morris: With great respect, the Secretary of State should listen more carefully. I did not suggest that elderly pensioners, the disabled, and mothers with large families would have to go to the local office of the DHSS every week. I argued that if benefits were paid on the same basis as the unemployment benefit is paid, people would have to go to the local office of the DHSS to opt out. If that system will not obtain the Secretary of State will have to invite everyone to exercise a choice before he


brings the scheme into operation. With respect, the Secretary of State completely misrepresented my point.
If the proposals go ahead I believe that they will cause distress and anxiety to the most vulnerable sections of the community. It is no use arguing that the same procedures that are used for the payment of unemployment benefits will be used. That represents a cut of only 1 per cent. in post office counter staffing. This will represent a 25 per cent. cut if it is done on a monthly basis, and a 17 per cent. cut if it is done on a fortnightly basis.
There is an even more interesting point. The Secretary of State told us that the Government would seek to find alternative work for skilled post office workers. The post office itself has been trying to find alternative work for post office counters for many years. The Secretary of State puts these ideas forward, yet he says that if the Government make it possible for gas and electricity accounts to be paid at post office counters, there will need to be a change in legislation. Has he had the Prime Minister's authority for saying that legislation will be brought in to give effect to the changes? If there is a possibility of extra work for post office counter workers, it should be identified.
This whole measure has been put to the House on the basis of allowing a wider choice. However, many vulnerable sections of the community have little choice over weekly payments. I have two wards in my constituency in which more than 40 per cent. of the families are on family incomes at or below subsistence level. The thought of fortnightly or monthly payments fills these vulnerable people with anxiety. It should also fill hon. Members with anxiety.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am very grateful for having caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I welcome the Government amendment, and I am delighted to note that the Opposition are at one with the Government in recognising the importance of sub-post offices to the community. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratu-

late my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because his amendment sets out the Government's position very clearly. They have shown that they have in mind the best interests of the Post Office, the National Health Service and the public in making their intentions known today.
It is right that any Government should examine the options open to them. It would be wrong not to do so. They must be sure that the services that they provide are more effective and efficient.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right in saying that the sub-post office enjoys a unique and special position in the life of many communities. In Perthshire there are 15 town sub-post offices. The town sub-post office on a council estate or a small communal estate is as important as the post office in a rural area. There are 71 sub-post offices in the rural areas of Perthshire, and therefore I have an interest in both types. They are unique in many ways, because they serve a large number of small communities. Some of these communities are isolated from the centre of the town because of the inadequacy or expense of public transport. This should not be overlooked.
Many sub-post offices are situated at considerable distances from the nearest habitation or village. Hon. Members should visit some of the beautiful spots in my constituency, where we have some very good post offices. The sub-post office is a splendid example of a small business that provides a unique and essential service. It caters for a variety of needs. In addition to providing postal facilities, it sells groceries, stationery, newspapers, tobacco and many other goods.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not true that in many parts of the hon. Member's area, and in some parts of mine, such sub-post offices would no longer be viable if they did not receive agency fees from the Post Office?

Mr. Walker: I was just about to come to that point. Sub-post offices are very important small businesses, which provide these services to the community, and they do so because they are convenient to the public. The additional services can be carried out only because the small businesses are made viable by the regular cash flow contributed by the post office section of the business.
The network of sub-post offices is vital to the life of rural and urban communities, and it is right that the Government should explore ways of bringing new business to these sub-post offices. That is important. While examining areas for additional business, I trust that the Government will recognise that the nationalised industries and other utilities, such as electricity and gas, and local government should be encouraged to accept payment of accounts by instalments through sub-post offices. That would make it easier for the public and would help to expand and make more secure the network of these fine small businesses.
I recognise that in many EEC countries, and in North America, retirement pensions and family benefits are paid monthly. It is just possible that more and more people in this country will opt for such payments—but the important thing is the word "opt". The Government scheme, as I understand it, will give these options, of which I heartily approve.
I acknowledge that an increasing number of people are used to being paid monthly through their bank accounts, and therefore they are accustomed to budgeting on a monthly basis. However, in my constituency many pensioners have never had a bank account. Indeed, some of them do not trust banks, and even today they keep their savings in a tin box. That is not unusual in some rural parts of Scotland.
There are some people who have always budgeted weekly. To many working-class families this is a way of life, and it will take time for it to change. I welcome the assurance that the Government are allowing for this period of change. Consequently, I welcome the Government's intention to publish their proposals on social security payments—proposals that are being prepared by Sir Derek Rayner. I like the idea of any improvement in services. I like the idea of more efficiency and better value for money. I am a Scot, and therefore I wish to see the money used more effectively and efficiently.
The firm with which Sir Derek Rayner is associated has been reported to have said in the past that it always took decisions on the basis of good human relations. That had always turned out to be good economic and business practice, as well. If this same philosophy were

applied to the running of post offices and making payment to the various Government agencies, we would find that it worked to the advantage of consumers. That is what both sides of the House would wish. But we must not condone a system that says that because we have done it a certain way in the past we must continue to do it that way for ever. That is not sensible. It is not acceptable. I am surprised at the noises coming from the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), because people in the Islands are very enterprising. Most of them, however, leave the Islands to go elsewhere, to give the benefit of their inherent skills to the nation at large and to the world. Looking down the list of names where changes have occurred, one sees that a substantial number have come from the Islands. They welcome change. They accept that change is good.
I am confident that Sir Derek's proposals, when examined in the light of the factors that I have mentioned, will be found to be good economic and business practice for the country, for the Department of Health and Social Security and for that important sector with which this debate is concerned, the sub-post offices.

Mr. David Penhaligon: This is one of a series of debates in the House that pose the question "Do we or do we not wish to destroy villages?" I do not. But the Government clearly do. They are already charging people for their children to go to school and closing village schools. Their next target is obviously village sub-post offices. It is clear that villages do not fit into urban man's interpretation of sensible life in Britain. Villages are, therefore, being asked to pay.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any hon. Member could beat the Prime Minister's father, who was a sub-postmaster. My claim is that I probably can, having been a sub-postmaster at Chacewater for seven years before retiring shortly before the October 1974 general election and handing over to my wife. I can assure the Secretary of State that the one-third of the country receiving supplementary benefit, consisting of the people who wish to budget weekly—the percentage was higher in my village


—draw their money weekly automatically. It would not occur to them to do anything else. Indeed, a queue forms outside the sub-post office before it opens at the appointed hour.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Do the hon. Member's constituents who receive their pension and benefits weekly often run out of money, like mine, before they have run out of week?

Mr. Penhaligon: I suspect that that is so. We did not supply weeks in the sub-post office. The Government cannot get away with this. There are only two ways to save money. One is to close sub-post offices and the second is to reduce the amount of pay given to sub-postmasters for carrying out a service. One of the ironies about being a sub-postmaster is that one is on duty for 40 hours a week, whether or not one is doing business.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Penhaligon: If the Minister wishes to save money and to reduce the work content he will not simply close the sub-post offices that the Post Office give instructions to be closed; he will go further and close some sub-post offices simply because they are no longer economic to run.
Sub-postmasters have no contract; they are paid for results. I recollect, as a sub-postmaster, the time that national insurance stamps were scrapped. Few other groups have been similarly treated. They are too responsible to strike. To the present Government, they seem a sitting target for what are minor economies.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: rose—

Mr. Penhaligon: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. If the elderly are forced to go to the nearest town to collect their cash and forced to incur expenditure going there, it is obvious that they will spend that money in that town in order to recover some of the loss of the forced journey. That money will not, therefore, be spent in the village. It will not be spent on the estate. The argument is the same. If the money is spent in the town, the local shopping community will be destroyed.
The Government may save money, but they are looking to save money from the disabled, from the retired and from the unemployed. I humbly submit that if the Government are looking for areas in which to save money, those three categories do not quickly and obviously come to mind. This is a disgraceful proposal. What the Secretary of State said did not give me one iota of reassurance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reassure the elderly and the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, he need only come to the Dispatch Box and say "We were looking into this. I have now given instructions to stop it". That is all that is required.

Mr. Paul Dean: Two sensitive issues have combined to produce fears and anxieties. The close link between the payment of pensions and the future of sub-post offices, particularly in rural and suburban areas, has been clearly demonstrated. Rumour and speculation have fed upon each other. People have assumed that the Rayner axe is about to fall. Such has been the unhappy story so far. It has proved yet again that politics are more than economics and that we have to remember the natural reactions and emotions of people.
I believe that my right hon. Friend, in his speech today, has gone a long way to dispel the fears and to remove the fog surrounding the issue and to reassure both pensioners and sub-postmasters.
The village post office is a vital hub of activity in many villages and is often also the village shop. Neither would be viable in many cases without the other. It would be a false and short-sighted economy to drive this traditional British institution out of business. The Western Daily Press, one of my local newspapers, put the matter concisely in a leading article on 16 February, when it said:
We have lost too much from our villages already, with children being transported to distant schools: lost bus services; even closed churches and inns. The survival of the post office is the best hope for the revival of other amenities.
That is very effectively put. Were these closures to happen, there would be problems for pensioners who would have to go further to collect their pensions. This would involve greater expense with all


the inadequacy of rural transport services and the additional cost in fuel.
I welcome the reassurance by my right hon. Friend in his speech and the possibilities that he opened up of new business for the post offices through the Giro and the payment of fuel bills. If the leaks from the Rayner report have done nothing else, they have at least enabled my right hon. Friend to open up new possibilities for new business for our rural and suburban post offices.
On the payment of pensions, the essence, in my view, is that there should he greater freedom of choice but not compulsion. I can see that it makes good sense that the pensions of those with bank accounts should be paid direct into those accounts if the recipient so wishes. I can also see considerable benefit for many people to receive payment by Giro and other credit account arrangements if they so choose.
I suggest, however, that matters should stop there, at any rate for the time being. We should see how many people take advantage of the new arrangements, the savings that accrue and the difficulties that may arise.
We must remember that there are still many pensioners and others who budget on a weekly basis and who wish to collect their money each week from the post office. The Government would be wrong to stop that. I do not care for the idea of compelling some to draw their money fortnightly, while others are allowed to draw it weekly.
I do not accept that the payment of unemployment benefit on a fortnightly basis is a good analogy. Unemployment benefit is paid on a fortnightly basis because people sign on on a fortnightly basis.
It would be difficult to know where to draw the line between those paid fortnightly and those paid weekly. How could there be a hard and fast rule which would be sufficiently sensitive to the variety of circumstances and conditions that obtain?
What about the widow who receives supplementary benefit for the first time? She is distressed, confused and probably has had no previous contact with the social security system. Is she to be paid fortnightly? I doubt whether that would be an effective arrangement for her.
If we follow that road, there is a real risk of invidious comparisons being drawn in streets and in villages between those paid weekly and those paid fortnightly. If we tried to draw such a line, vulnerable people would be paid on a fortnightly basis. If that were to happen, I fear that the savings would be quite small because of the additional problems that would be created for those people and which would have to be picked up by the social security system.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be better to take one step at a time. As a first step, let us offer a wider range of choice to pensioners. We should find ways to bring new business to the sub-post offices. Both of those suggestions are in the Government amendment. Both were emphasised by my right hon. Friend in his helpful and sympathetic speech when he opened the debate. On those grounds I shall have no hesitation in voting for the Government amendment.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In spite of the statements made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in favour of the Government amendment, he, together with many of his hon. Friends, have made a case for the Opposition motion. They were all at great pains to point out how disastrous it would be if the present position were changed. They stressed how many people were dependent on weekly budgeting. The message received so far in the debate, apart from the speech of the Secretary of State, is, in modern parlance, "It's not on".
Even though the proposals have not yet been implemented, it is right for the House to send a shot across the bows of the Government.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No, I shall not give way. Certain stringent actions taken by the Government at this time could be reversed when times are easier, if that time ever occurs. However, the proposed action would inevitably close rural post offices. It would be an irreversible action that would do a great deal of damage to the rural areas.
Apart from one town, my constituency is rural in nature, with isolated communities. One person in four is over 65, as against one person in eight for the rest of Scotland. We face an exceptionally difficult problem. I know that other hon. Members face similar problems which would be exacerbated if the proposals were implemented. It is all very well for Sir Derek Rayner to make suggestions for saving money. It is interesting to note that although weekly, fortnightly or monthly payments would make savings, there is no suggestion that PAYE national insurance contributions should be paid monthly. That is money which is due to the Exchequer.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wish to make it clear that the proposals in the report are not those of Sir Derek Rayner. They are proposals by a team of officials in my Department. They are, therefore, proposals for which I—and not Sir Derek—take responsibility. Sir Derek's role is that of an adviser. I wish to make that clear. I hope that the House will accept that.

Mr. Stewart: That statement makes the Government's position all the more responsible. As well as taking into account areas where economies could be made, they have a responsibility to consider what would happen to the social fabric of our rural communities if the proposals were implemented. They cannot consider such matters in isolation regardless of any proposals from their advisers.
I was amused by the thought—although it would not be true in my constituency —of many pensioners fiddling about between bank accounts. Most of them do not have bank accounts. When they receive their weekly pension every penny has already been allocated and committed. They cannot stretch their pension any further than a week. They must receive their payments weekly.
The Government's proposals would encourage the Post Office to close down rural post offices, and that is what it wishes to do. Anything that reduces the income of the sub-post offices would assist in that end. The Government must prevent that from happening.
It would be ridiculous to claim that the Government are running a vendetta against rural areas, but it is beginning to

look that way with the removal of school transport, and so on. The proposals would be another nail in the coffin of the rural areas.
The Government appear to be an Administration without a heart or a soul. If they proceed with the proposals they will be an Administration without a head.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: shall be brief because of the short time available to debate this important matter. I wish to remind the Minister, despite what he has said, that, since the Rayner proposals became public knowledge through the media, there has been an enormous volume of opposition. In my constituency—and I am sure this has occurred in other constituencies—there has been a steady flow of correspondence from not only sub-postmasters, but from those who would be directly affected if the proposals become effective—pensioners, widows and the disabled. That correspondence has built up in the last few days to batches of 200 letters at one time. If the Minister and his colleagues have not had that experience, I should be happy to send them my batches of correspondence so that they can read and understand the depth of feeling that exists among so many about the fact that the payment of pensions and social security benefits will be withdrawn from sub-post offices.
As many hon. Members have already said, the proposals threaten the viability of sub-post offices, and could put them out of business. I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) about the dependence of pensioners on a weekly payment. They work to a tight budget, knowing full well in many cases that the money will be exhausted before the next weekly payment arrives.
To suggest that they should wait for two or four weeks between payments, and be compelled to open a bank account, is absolutely preposterous. I cannot imagine how Rayner, the Minister, or anybody else could arrive at such a conclusion in a mad bid to save a few pounds. It is the wrong area in which to seek cuts in public expenditure.
I suggest to the Minister that, instead of pursuing this course of action, the


acknowledgement of a social responsibility and obligation to pensioners and other recipients of social security benefits would far outweigh any other responsibilities with which the Government have to contend. They should withdraw completely from, and forget for ever more any suggestion of any change in the existing system of payment of benefits.

Mr. Tim Eggar: It is unfortunate that the debate is taking place today. Having heard the Secretary of State's remarks, it is unfortunate that the idea ever spread that the Government were intending to force pensioners and others in receipt of benefits to receive the payments fornightly or monthly. Rumour and speculation have already caused distress to many thousands of the elderly throughout the country. That rumour and speculation has deeply concerned many sub-postmasters, who have seen their livelihoods threatened.
The way in which the Opposition have chosen to treat the subject is unfortunate. They have deliberately set out to frighten the elderly. They have deliberately set out to feed the rumours. They have done so although the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has made it clear that the one thing that it does not want is for this to become a political issue.
I stress that I am broadly in sympathy with the Government's overall economic policies. I recognise that that support involves cutting public expenditure. I recognise also that it is no good Conservative Members supporting the Government's general economic policies while on every occasion trying to resist public expenditure restrictions.
I remember the advice that I was given by a Labour Member soon after I entered the House. He told me that if I wished to criticise the Government I should do so on the big issues and not on the minor ones. Why am I speaking in the debate?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Why, indeed?

Mr. Eggar: The issue that we are discussing involves much more than the £50 million that will be saved during the year. It goes much further than that. It calls into question the Government's attitude. The way in which the issue has been approached and handled is symptomatic

of an attitude and approach to governing that, if it is permitted to continue, will go far to undermine the Government's economic strategy and the Government themselves.
There are two major criticisms of the Government's treatment of the Rayner proposals. The first is that the proposals were allowed to reach the Floor of the House without the Government previously having explained their viewpoint. The second criticism is that any undermining of the sub-post office network goes contrary to the Conservative belief in the family, the community, and the support of small business men.
In May the Government received a mandate to cut public expenditure. Despite that, we have to rule with the consent of the electorate. We must carry the people with us. If the voters do not understand, or do not have explained to them, the reasons for the measures that we are taking in relatively small areas—such as the one that we are discussing—in our efforts to restrict public expenditure, they will begin to doubt not merely that Government proposal but the Government's overall economic policy.
There is a danger that we are forgetting that there is a reverse side to the Conservative approach—a side that stresses the need for a reduction in public expenditure. I refer to the approach that stresses the importance of self-help, of family life and of the community. It is not much good if, in our enthusiasm to save public money, we destroy the social fabric and the way of life that prospered well before the explosion in State expenditure that was brought about by Governments of both the main parties in the past 20 years.
In many areas in my urban constituency—I do not represent a rural area—I sec the way in which the local sub-post offices provide a valuable social and economic function.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Eggar: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
In most areas the sub-post offices are providing the only remaining local general stores. They are important local meeting places. They are a source of local


information that is second to none. They are an unseen and unsung corner of an efficient system of self-help and mutual help in the community that is preferable to visits to DHSS offices.
The importance of sub-post offices to the community may best be judged by the number of people who consciously prefer to collect their pensions at a sub-post office, even if a Crown office is nearer to them. They can be judged also by the public outcry that follows when any sub-post office is threatened with closure. For many people the sub-post offices, even in the urban areas, are the centres of communities. They are centres of community life that would disappear if the sub-post offices were not present. They are worthy of our support.
Despite those submissions, I support the Minister's argument that pensioners and child benefit recipients should have the right to be paid fortnightly or monthly. However, there must be choice. Many pensioners in my constituency could not manage on other than a weekly budget. I accept the argument against transporting large sums of cash throughout the country to sub-post offices. However, if we wish to break the extraordinary British habit of weekly budgeting and the use of cash, we should do so by introducing an amendment to the Truck Acts. We should not start by altering the basis of payment to those who are in retirement.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to the continued viability of the sub-post office network. I hope that I detected a strong undertaking from the Minister that he will not do anything to undermine the viability of the present network. I merely say to the Government that there is always a danger that we shall win all the battles but finally lose the war.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the Front Benches have agreed that they will not seek to catch my eye until 6.38 pm. If hon. Members make five-minute speeches I shall be able to call four more hon. Members to participate in the debate.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am against any move on the part of the Government that will weaken

the system of weekly payments to pensioners, to mothers and to other benefit recipients.
The Secretary of State made great play of the Government's amendment, which states that the proposals are
intended to give recipients a wider choice as to the method of payment and to save administrative costs".

To widen the area of choice would seem to be an acceptable objective. However, by giving choice to some—by definition the "some" will be a minority, the relatively rich recipients of pensions and social security benefits who will want their pensions and benefits paid at other than weekly intervals—we shall limit the choice that is available to others.
In the first instance, there would necessarily be a loss of business to the sub-post offices. If a significant number wish to exercise their option to have other than weekly payments, that will have a significant impact on the viability of sub-post offices. If there were large savings and a sufficiently significant impact, the viability of sub-post offices would be threatened. Therefore, the choice open to the majority who want weekly payments would not exist.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As many hon. Members have said, sub-post offices in urban areas as well as rural areas provide an essential service. They are the hubs around which the whole community thrives. In the urban areas in my constituency, and in the rural areas, of which there are many in my constituency, the village shops and all that goes with them exist only because within the same premises are sub-post offices. if the sub-post office is threatened by the payment of benefits other than at weekly intervals the shop is threatened and with it the rapport, the ethos and the atmosphere of that area.
Already 6,000 sub-post offices have closed. The number is now down to 21,000 and 3,000 more are threatened by the Government's proposal. There is another important aspect of the issue. If it were accepted that people should now have freedom of choice to exercise the option to have benefits paid other than at weekly intervals it would not


only damage the viability of the post Office; it would also mean that any future Government could say that there would be harmonisation and rationalisation of the system. Having forced in this thin end of the wedge it would be very much the prerogative of a future Government to say that the system should be extended because only a minority of people were being paid benefits on a weekly basis.
The Secretary of State did not give any assurance to my hon. Friends and his hon. Friends who insisted on a guarantee that those who wished to continue with weekly payments would get them and that they would not be compelled to do otherwise. It is all right to widen choice —albeit at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few—but it is not acceptable if the widening of the choice for the few eventually implants in the minds of future Ministers the use of compulsion to ensure that the minority who want weekly payments should now comply with the new system of payment into the bank. I do not say that that is in the mind of the Secretary of State but it might happen in future.
Many of the constituents of hon. Member's on both sides of the House cannot manage other than on weekly payments. Pensioners have already been clobbered by increases in VAT, the price of gas, rates, and all the other changes brought on by inflation. They cannot manage without weekly benefit payments. That also applies certainly to the vast majority of my constituents who receive child benefits. They need that money each week. The week is long enough as it is without their being threatened by the Secretary of State that benefits will be paid out over a longer period and paid into a bank account.
Those people have already been clobbered enough by this Government by the prospect of paying more for transport and school meals for their children; by having to pay increased prescription charges and increases in prices in every conceivable sector. Those increases are the result of the deliberate policy of the Government. It ill becomes the Secretary of State, therefore, to propose to clobber them even further by suggesting that in future they will not receive child benefit payment weekly.
This Government have already cheated the pensioners out of the increase

that they would have received under the Labour Government. The Government have cheated them out of the increase that they should have received had the Government made correct assumptions about the levels at which earnings would increase this year. Pensioners have been swindled dramatically by this Government. They should not, along with those in receipt of child benefit or other social security payments allow themselves to be swindled by these proposals. My hon. Friends will oppose this, as we would have done had a Labour Government brought forward such proposals. I hope that Tory Members will similarly have the courage of their convictions.

Mr. Dudley Smith: It is admirable that the Government should seek to improve the public service by making it more efficient, but I think it is rather unwise to start a hare running such as this one that has caused a great deal of anxiety to those affected. Public discussion about possible ideas is one thing but suggestions that there may be implementation of policy is entirely another.
I was worried to hear my right hon. Friend speaking about the part played by Sir William Barlow the chairman of the Post Office. If Sir William Barlow has made the speeches my right hon. Friend suggested he has made I believe that he has acted reprehensibly. I support the idea of wider choice in methods of payment and support the Government's amendment. I regret that it was necessary for the Opposition to bring forward this motion today. But I do not blame them. They are playing politics with the issue. However, I do not think that the motion would have been necessary had the problem been handled better from the start.
Any suggestion that we should move even gradually toward the payment of pensions and other benefits on a monthly, or even fortnightly, basis must be resisted particularly where rural areas are concerned. I must tell my right hon. Friend that if this proposition comes before the House I will not give the proposal my support.
I wonder sometimes whether the bureaucrats and the efficiency experts live in the same world as ordinary people.


Certainly I wonder whether they live in the world of those who are confined to rural areas. Our rural areas are part of our heritage and they have been badly undermined by successive Governments over the last 30 years. If we believe in anything, surely we must believe in preserving and stabilising village life.
It is true that the villages have changed considerably in recent years because of weekend residents, but there are still large numbers of people, many of them old, still living in the villages. Surely it is realised that changes of the type originally mooted would be impractical anyway. Few villages nowadays have even the tiniest branch of a bank and most of them have an unreliable bus service or no bus service at all. Surely it is realised that the sub-post office is much more than a cash counter; much more than a paying-out machine. Sub-post offices are nearly always the focal point of the village and they combine many other services alongside that of being a shop.
I had a letter this morning from one of the sub-postmistresses in my area. She said
I am in close contact with my pensioners and often I am the only source of advice.
In those circumstances I hope that these proposals will be forgotten after this debate. Sub-post offices provide excellent facilities, though I believe that the Post Office would like to see large numbers of rural post offices phased out. I am not impressed by that idea, because I do not admire the judgment of the Post Office which in so many other respects has proved to be fallible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Butler) will call Sir William Barlow to account over this issue.
Let us by all means bring in new business to the rural sub-post offices—

Mr. Rees-Davies: rose—

Mr. Smith: No, I cannot give way because I have promised to make my speech short. Let us by all means bring in extra business to the sub-post offices and let us do all we can to help rural populations where life is very different from the life which is lived in Whitehall. While we are reforming, preaching

efficiency and cutting out waste—a policy I fully support—can we at the same time apply the principles of common sense?

Mr. John Maxton: The debate so far has concentrated on the problems of the rural areas. There have only been passing references to the towns and to smaller council schemes. I think that the House should be aware of the dangers to the large council house schemes in our industrial cities that are posed by these proposals.
One of the largest council house schemes in Europe, with a population of 38,000, is in my constituency. Taking supplementary benefits, child benefits and old-age pensions together, I would have thought that almost 60 per cent. of those people will be receiving benefits in some form or another. Within that area there is not one bank to serve a population of 38,000. For the payment of their benefits those people, therefore, rely absolutely on the sub-post offices.
I received a letter from a sub-postmaster in one of the poorest parts of that area. I have not managed to check his figures, but he says that 85 per cent. of his income comes as a result of the payment of benefits to people in the area. It would need only a small number of those people to decide that they would use banks and have their benefits paid fortnightly to make his business non-viable. He would have to give up. It is not a matter of his being told by the Post Office that he would have to give up. He would have to give up because he could not operate—there would be no profit in it for him.
My correspondent made the point that he is one shop in a row of 10. He said that if his shop, as a sub-post office, closed because it was no longer viable, the people who received benefit from him would no longer be able to shop in the other nine shops. They would have to go elsewhere, outside Castlemilk altogther, in order to obtain their money. As a result, they would also do their shopping elsewhere. Therefore, not only the sub-post office but a large number of the other shops would close. A major social benefit would be taken away if sub-post offices in such areas were to close.
I am trying to be brief, because I am well aware that other hon. Members wish


to speak. We should bear in mind the problems associated with large housing schemes where, let us be honest, private enterprise has failed to provide basic services. In the area to which I have referred, there are no banks, and the shops are of a poor standard compared with the chain stores. Incidentally, there is no Marks and Spencer's to serve the population of 38,000. There are no cinemas, theatres or bingo halls. There is very little.
The sub-post offices provides a valuable service in those circumstances. What people in areas such as that want is not fewer sub-post offices but more. I recently received a petition from several thousand people asking that another shop in the area be given the right to have sub-post office facilities. I therefore urge the Minister to bear in mind the problems associated with the large housing schemes within our bigger urban areas.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me. The importance of sub-post offices is recognised by everyone. I represent an enormous rural area, which has 120 villages. I should like to stress two things. Village post offices and the shops that go with them are viable only if people shop in them. That point must be remembered, because people are inclined only to buy the last packet of fags on a Saturday night there and to do all their other shopping in the supermarket, 10 or 11 miles away. That is how people can assist in helping their own sub-post offices.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that we must find out all the ways of cutting out waste and unnecessary expenditure. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) that we cannot find ways of giving sub-post offices extra jobs to do while at the same time cutting out the undoubted waste that exists in the Post Office system. One way would be to allow sub-post offices to sell road fund licences. I have never been able to understand why that has not been done, and I hope that that possibility can be explored by the Department of Transport.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether Sir William Barlow and the Post Office are paying out to sub-post offices a fair share of the £132½ million

that they receive from the DHSS. That information must be found out in order to ensure that sub-post offices receive their fair share of the total sum that is paid to the Post Office.
A point that is often forgotten is that many rural areas—there are several villages in my constituency alone—are without any post offices at all. The idea of paying by cheque or paying monthly could help those villages considerably. As has been pointed out, the cost of transport from such a village—generally they are the smallest villages situated a long way from a small market town—is more than £1. If payment could be made fortnightly or into a bank account, I believe that would help those who live in such villages. We always try to get sub-post offices to re-open, but without a big enough community they are just not viable.
The Government have done the right thing in moving the amendment, which I shall certainly support. However, we must find ways and means of modernising and returning to the village some of the life that has been lost through losing the parson, the shops and perhaps some of the bigger farmers. We must try by all means possible to return life to the village. One way is to support the village post office, which is of such a great help to the community.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is hoped to start the winding-up speeches at 6.38 pm.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I seem to be setting the standard for being called immediately before the Front-Bench speakers. When last I spoke I was allocated four minutes, and today it is three. Having listened to some of the speeches by Conservative Members, and read again the early-day motions which they signed, I am amazed that they can go into the Lobby with the Secretary of State tonight.
The Government must learn that the combination of cuts in public expenditure and the play of free market forces means that certain groups in the community make more sacrifices than others. They are the groups who can least afford it, such as less-well-off old people, the


disabled and parents with young families, especially those families who have one parent working for below average earnings.
There are a number of aspects to this problem. Transport is one of them. Car ownership is fine for those who have cars. It is convenient and logical to use them. But it means that bus services, particularly in rural areas, are reduced, and those who cannot afford cars can no longer afford the bus fares, even if there is a bus service left. Shopping has also been mentioned. The better-off can buy weekly in supermarkets and can go by car. They can use freezers. But the extension of that kind of shopping means that small village shops either close or put up their prices. It is the same group of people who must pay the higher prices.
The problem of sub-post offices applies equally to towns; it is not confined to villages and suburban areas. The three-quarters of a mile journey to a sub-post office in a city area can be extremely hazardous for old people. To us, sub-post offices may just be places where we can buy stamps and the occasional greeting card, but to old people and others they are the link with the community. They are their advice centres on national bureaucracy, and they mean much more to such people than they do to the rest of us.
It has been argued that 60 per cent. of people would be quite happy to have their pensions paid monthly. I do not doubt that. I am sure that when hon. Members come to draw their parliamentary pensions they will say "Pay it into the bank". But by doing so we deprive those who have lived on weekly earnings all their lives. There are those of us who have done the switch from weekly wage to monthly salary, be it for promotion purposes or whatever. That switch is hard at first, because there is too much month at the end of the money. But, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we are talking about people with too much week at the end of the money.
The Secretary of State has not been clear about where the proposed £50 million cuts will come from. He has said that there will be no significant closures, but we do not know what "significant" means in that context. I urge him to re-

think the whole matter. He should recognise the importance of the sub-post office, even if it is not the absolutely efficient place which everyone would hope it to be. He should remember that what is convenient and logical for us can spell disaster for the people about whom we are talking. I assure the Secretary of State that we shall keep a very close eye on him.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The speeches of Conservative Members have shown that this has been an admirably suitable subject for debate. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State has had a drubbing from his own Back Benchers. Incidentally, he has sought through interventions to make something of a scapegoat of Sir William Barlow and to downgrade the work of Sir Derek Rayner.
I do not believe that any hon. Member can accept that it is fair and just to give a so-called freedom or wider choice to a minority of people which has the consequential effect of removing a freedom —namely, that of using the local sub-post office—from the majority of our citizens. That is an unacceptable arrangement to the Opposition and to many of the Government supporters who spoke. It is unacceptable to a vast array of bodies in this country, including the National Consumer Council, which wrote to every Member of Parliament. That is the record.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way only once.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give way. He is speaking from the Front Bench. Speaking from the Government Front Bench before the election, his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said:
I am much in favour of the principle, and the introduction of such an arrangement would cover child benefit as well as retirement pensions."—[Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 1078.]
Is the hon. Gentleman now entirely resiling from that?

Mr. Rooker: I expected that. In the words of the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS:


"Answer the question."] I do not have to answer the question. My right hon. Friend made it clear. We were not talking about the same issue. We were not talking about compulsory fortnightly payments of old-age pensions and compulsory monthly payments of child benefit. They are two separate issues. The Secretary of State knows that. A record number of early-day motions were tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House on this subject. At the last count, eight had been tabled. There is one tabled by Scottish Members today. That shows that the matter is highly charged. Our constituents are aware of it.
The Secretary of State was a little less than fair when he started to talk about how he would secure the savings. If the average payment for a transaction in a post office is 7p or 12p—it was 12p according to one parliamentary answer that I received—it does not matter. The answer, to save that money, is to put the burden on the individual citizen who cannot keep £100 in a bank account and who will be forced to pay 20p for every transaction. The savings will come from the poor and needy, who will be forced to use a system not of their own choice.
If Government supporters are in any doubt about whether there will be freedom of choice for the majority of pensioners, they need to look only at the exchanges at Question Time on 29 January, when the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), said:
Other people may need to adapt to a different payment period that will strike a better balance between their wishes for fairly frequent payment and the needs of taxpayers who have to foot the bill."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol 177, c. 1106.]
If that is not an indication of compulsion, I do not know what is. That is what is proposed for pensioners.
The Secretary of State gave examples of people who did not collect their child benefit for weeks on end. There are examples in every hon. Member's constituency, certainly in my own, of mothers with one child, who collect only £4, queueing up at sub-post offices at 8.30 am, half an hour before they open. There are many occasions when constituents

have come to me at holiday time—especially at bank holidays, including Christmas—telling me that they received a double payment of their old-age pension. They argued with the sub-postmaster that they did not want a double payment that week because of the problems it caused their family budget and the security risks involved.
This is not a rural problem. There are urban villages in our great cities where one sub-post office, whether in a grocer's or a draper's shop, can mean viability for that shop and for half a dozen other shops as well. Without the sub-post office, the other shops will not have customers. They will close. That will lead to urban decay and to the growth of the multiples. People will have to go to the multiples for the sub-post office function.
Recently this winter in Birmingham every sub-post office co-operated with the local authority social services department in distributing a leaflet to pensioners, the elderly and the disabled on how to get through the winter. That was done free of charge. A copy was received by every person who needed it. There was no charge by the sub-postmasters. That important social service will not be available if there is a diminution in the number of sub-post offices which must carry an extra work load. There may be a diminution of Crown post offices. We have not talked much about that today. However, there could be a spin-off effect on to the Crown post offices. This is not just a village problem in the rural areas. It is also a major problem in the urban areas.
Pensioners may now be paid, if they wish, at four-weekly or 13-weekly intervals. Many, not the majority, are paid in that way under the social security claims and payments regulations 1979. The assessment of the advice I am given from the Library is that it would be necessary to amend the regulations if the Government wanted to stop weekly payments. It seems that they already have the power to make monthly payments through bank accounts as an option. However, I have a feeling that after today we shall not hear too much about this issue. This will be one of the matters that slip to the bottom of Ministers' in-trays. It is clear from the speeches of some Government supporters that these proposals will not be passed.
We heard a lot about the attitude of Sir Derek Rayner. He said that he did not propose to close any post office. He said that that was not his job. It is neither the job of the Government nor that of the Post Office to close sub-post offices. The decision to close a sub-post office is that of the sub-postmaster. That is not within the sphere of the Government to organise.
I do not know how the Government have the effrontery to propose an amendment to the Opposition motion, claiming that there will be loads of new business for the State bank, the National Giro, and work for the State fuel companies, the gas and electricity organisations, all of which have workers under threat. We presume that their own payments systems are efficient. If not, they would have been belly-aching before.
It is clear that there have not been many consultations by the Government on this matter. This has been hatched up as a result of Back Bench pressure, the lobby of sub-postmasters, who will come to the House tomorrow in vast numbers, the correspondence that hon. Members have received, and the petitions organised in the sub-post offices. The people in the country understand a threat. They do not need sanctimonious speeches of the type that they heard from the Secretary of State today, implying that the Opposition did not understand the problem. The people outside the House, the elderly and the disabled, understand the problem. This is a classic chance of being able to nip the matter in the bud.
The Secretary of State has not answered every question. He did not tell us from where the saving of £50 million would come. If the Government had done their work properly, they would know on what basis the saving of £50 million would be made. They would know the possible percentage take-up and how much of the savings would come from the workers, many of whom are part-time women workers in sub-post offices. They would know what the savings would be from rent and rates and the cutback in civil servants at the DHSS.
Unless the Government can answer those questions, we shall know that this is a half-baked scheme, as one Government supporter described it to the Prime Minister re-

cently. The right hon. Lady replied that some half-baked schemes could become fully baked. The House does not often have the chance to nip in the bud a crazy half-baked scheme. The vote at 7 o'clock is a golden opportunity for us to do so. Even if the scheme were presented to the House half-baked, fully baked, dressed up like a turkey, wrapped in a Japanese kimono and with a free copy of Men Only, it would still be thrown out.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): The motion is typical of an Opposition bereft of ideas. They thought that they saw disarray on the Government Benches. They therefore put down a highly opportunistic motion. But like many opportunists, they have ended up with egg on their faces; and in the process they have caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm outside the House among sub-postmasters and postmasters.
There were some serious contributions from the Opposition, but most of the serious contributions came from Government supporters, who spoke eloquently and with experience about the important part that the village post office, and those in certain urban areas, play in the community.
I also speak with some experience because Bosworth, despite its industries, has many village post offices whose staff have written to me as others have written to my colleagues. In addition, I have lived for more than 20 years in a small village of some 400 souls. So I have a double experience in this matter. I do not therefore need any lectures from the Opposition on this, nor charges from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that the Government want to destroy villages—what a ridiculous and unsubstantiated accusation.
The village is an essential part of our national life, and I suggest that local planners have a special responsibility to ensure that villages are given a chance to prosper. They should make a conscious effort to ensure that villages are of a viable size to survive with a population to support a village shop, a village hall, a church—this is a random order of priorities—and a pub. These things are essential to give a village a life of its own, to make it self-sustaining and to


persuade people who wish to use it purely for commuter purposes to live in it properly and make their contribution to it.
However, it cannot be denied that in the smaller villages, and in some urban areas, the local post office is struggling and, even in combination with a shop, the income it provides is too low. In urban areas, residents are attracted away to the town centres and it is the elderly, the carless, and the mothers with young children at home who have to patronise the local store. Yet there are dedicated sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who continue, in the face of these financial difficulties, to serve the public; and we must do our best to support these men and women.
One of the benefits of high fuel costs is that out-of-the-way shops and post offices have gained business. They have benefited, too, from the special prices of the bulk wholesale groups, and so their prices now stand better comparison than they once did with those of the town centre supermarkets. This at least provides them with one reason for hope. Nevertheless, they are under pressure. The fact is that 15 per cent. of sub-post offices are on the Post Office's minimum scale-payment. For one-third of these, it has been possible to find takers by agreeing special conditions, such as shorter than normal opening hours. It is also true that over the last three years the Post Office network has been reduced by some 400 sub-post offices. Against this background, any change affecting the income of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, and the lives of the local communities, must be considered very carefully indeed.
Yet the starting point has to be the potential savings of any change in arrangements; and the choice to those who receive benefits which is so mocked at by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and many of his colleagues, the choice which should be available to the individual and which is presently denied. However, we know well that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) accepted in principle that this choice should be given.
The weakness of the Opposition motion is that it displays the rigidity of the Socialist approach. Apparently nothing must change. There is, according to the

right hon. Member for Salford, West, an overwhelming case for things to remain as they are. So the Opposition demand that all benefits must be paid weekly, regardless of the fact that two-thirds of wage-earners are now paid monthly, and that unemployment benefit is paid fortnightly. It was they who brought in the pilot scheme regarding fortnightly unemployment benefit payments in the full knowledge of the consequences of this in possible loss of revenue to sub-post offices.
That is why the motion is so opportunist. The Opposition sought to exploit our concern and mistook a sincere anxiety in our ranks for dissension. How wrong they will prove to be when we vote tonight!

Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Butler: I am sorry, I have no time.
There is no mention in the motion of cost savings, athough that was the philosophy of the Labour Party when it was in government and still is as it continues in opposition today. As the Leader of the Opposition made absolutely clear to me on steel matters, it did not matter a tuppenny damn to him whether the taxpayer had to find another £10 million or £20 million. That is an attitude of mind which we are not prepared to adopt.
We welcome the opportunity to have administrative costs in the operation of the social security system. However, this must not prejudice the sub-post office network; we must ensure its continuance. It is the job of the Post Office management to run the network and it has to come to the best commercial arrangements it can, but if the Rayner proposals are to be brought in—and no decisions have yet been taken—the Government must and will examine what ways exist of finding replacement income.
My hon. Friends mentioned some of the possibilities. Certainly we have to consider whether we should change the 1969 Act, as my right hon. Friend said, to allow the sub-post offices to deal as agents with the bills from nationalised industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) asked about vehicle licensing. This is something which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is actively considering at the moment. I do not believe


that this will bring a vast amount of extra business, because not every sub-post office will be able to deal with vehicle licensing, but if it were extended to another thousand or so it would help. We need to adopt an imaginative approach. Fuel stamps have been mentioned. The sale of Government stock is another possibility, together with the sale of lottery stamps. Those who have any breadth of imagination would agree that all these matters should be examined.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we have every intention of ensuring the continuance of the sub-post office network, but it will need an effort from all concerned, including the Post Office and sub-post offices; and the Giro bank where there is scope for an increase in activity. There must be an effort by the Post Office to compete for additional business on commercial terms.
Local communities must also have regard to their sub-post offices. It is within the power of the local authorities, and indeed of the parish councils, to make money available to ensure the future of sub-post offices in their local community. If a local community believes that it is essential to retain a particular sub-post office, then surely it is not unreasonable to ask that local community itself to make a contribution to what it believes

—and rightly—to be one of its social assets.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend saying that, because he is going to undermine the viability of the present sub-post office network, the local authorities will have to pick up the bill?

Mr. Butler: I was delighted to give way to my hon. Friend because he made a very good contribution two hours ago. I have made it clear that we shall not undermine this network. The amendment says that we will ensure the future of the network. However, I say again that it is not an unreasonable proposition that, as with rural buses, the local authority should be asked to make a contribution to ensure the continuance of a social asset.
The Government have not made any decisions on the Rayner proposals. As my right hon. Friend has said, before any decisions are made there will be full and proper consultation and a debate in the House.
I commend the amendment to my hon. Friends.

Question put, That the orginal words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 317.

Division No. 190]
AYES
[7 pm


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Adams, Allen
Carmichael, Neil
Dubs, Alfred


Allaun, Frank
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Cartwright, John
Dunlop, John


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cook, Robin F.
Eggar, Timothy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cowans, Harry
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, J. S.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Field, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tarn
Fitch, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Deakins, Eric
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dewar, Donald
Freud, Clement


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dixon, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, Ian
Dobson, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Douglas, Dick
Ginsburg, David




Golding, John
McNally, Thomas
Sandelson, Neville


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin
Sever, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Haynes, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslle


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Homewood, William
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Horam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Straw, Jack


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Morton, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Hon Greville
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tllley, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
O'Neill, Martin
Torney, Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Park, George
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne Valley)


Kerr, Russell
Parker, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Kilfedder, James A.
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Kinnock, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Lambie, David
Penhallgon, David
Welsh, Michael


Lamborn, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, Frank R. (Bury a Radcliffe)


Leadbitter, Ted
Prescott, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Leighton, Ronald
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Race, Reg
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Litherland, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Winnick, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, George
Woolmer, Kenneth


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Wright, Sheila


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton East)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roper, John



Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMahon, Andrew
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Ted Graham and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Ryman, John
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard
Butler, Hon Adam


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Andrew
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bright, Graham
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brinton, Tim
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brittan, Leon
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brotherton, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Cockeram, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Cope, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Corrie, John


Best, Keith
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nick
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Bulmer, Esmond
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, John
Burden, F. A.
Crouch, David




Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Kimball, Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Royle, Sir Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Fotest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Major, John
Spence, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, lain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Squire, Robin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Steen, Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Martin


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tapsell, Peter


Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moore, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Trippier, David


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Haselhurst, Alan
Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Myles, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, peter


Hawkins, Paul
Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walters, Dennis


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Osborn, John
Ward, John


Hill, James
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Warren, Kenneth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Watson, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Whitney, Raymond


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wickenden, Keith


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Sir Ian
Williams, Deiwyn (Montgomery)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolfson, Mark


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, George
Younger, Rt Hon George


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the importance of the sub-post office network in the life of urban and rural communities, insists that the Government, in making any changes in the system of paying pensions and benefits intended to give recipients wider choice as to the method of payment and to save administrative costs, ensures the continuance of that network, welcoming the Government's commitment to explore ways of bringing new business to sub-post offices, for instance through the National Girobank and wider opportunities for the payment of bills.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment read.

Clause 25

ACUPUNCTURE

[The Lords have disagreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 21, line 1, after '1957' insert "or a registered member of the British Acupuncture Association and Register Limited", for the following reason: Because it is desirable to give the House of Commons an opportunity to reconsider the Amendment.]

Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move
That this House doth insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

The House might have been forgiven for believing that it had seen the end of the West Midlands County Council Bill and for expressing surprise that it is the subject of further debate this evening. The matter at issue is clause 24 of the Bill. The West Midlands County Council proposed that persons who practise as acupuncturists should no longer carry on doing so unless they and their premises are registered with the district council. Failure to register would render acupuncturists liable to a fine of up to £200. Following registration they would then be subjected to district council byelaws which would aim to ensure standards of cleanliness of premises, equipment and persons employed.
Without having to petition, doctors and dentists, whether or not they practised acupuncture, were granted an amendment by the county council exempting them from having to register or be subject to the byelaws. The British Acupuncture Association petitioned against the clause and sought the same exemption as doctors and dentists who practised acupuncture. Because the association was still in negotiation with the county council for that exemption when the Bill first went to the other place, it reserved its position until the Bill came before the


Commons Private Bill Committee, as it had every right to do.
My interest in this matter is that I am the sole surviving member of that Private Bill Committee that met prior to the election and received the petition of the Association. For two days we heard evidence from the Association and the promoters of the Bill—the county council. We cross-examined both parties at length, received Government reports and submissions and unanimously concluded in favour of removing the exemption clause for the Association.
When the Bill arrived at its consideration stage in the House last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) proposed to amend clause 24 by removing this exemption of the Association, but his amendment was not selected by Mr. Speaker for debate. Thus the Bill, retaining the exemption for the Association, went back to the other place for consideration of Commons amendments two weeks ago. There, even though there had been a Commons amendment to clause 24, Lord Derwent moved a motion to remove the exemption which we, in Committee, had granted to the Association. It is for that reason that we are having the debate tonight.
In my view, the motion from the other place has serious constitutional implications. The other place is asking this House to overturn a decision arrived at by a Private Bill Committee of this House. The other place has not had the benefit of the experience of our Committee in arriving at our decision. It should he remembered that we sat for two days cross-examining the petitioners and the promoters of the Bill and receiving evidence. The other place, after only 15 minutes, decided to reject our decision.

Mr. Dan Jones: Do I interpret the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) correctly? Is it a fact that the other place has interfered with a Committee of this House? Is it the principle of acupuncture or is it both?

Mr. Atkinson: As I hope to make plain during the course of my speech, it is a little of each.
The detailed examination in Committee, afforded by the Private Bill pro-

cedure, is the way in which Parliament provides petitioners with a right to seek redress of grievance and protection. It is a procedure which is judicial in character. It is an ancient right that this House has proudly defended through the centuries. In seeking to amend the Bill the other place now challenges the strong tradition and to remove the principle of comity here in our Bill that where a Private Bill Committee of one House has reached a positive decision—as in this case—the other place will not seek to overturn it. This is a challenge that is not without precedent.
Lord Derwent, in the debate in the other place, said that the last occasion on which the other place agreed to disagree with an amendment approved by this House was in 1903. I need not remind the House of the events of a constitutional nature that followed in 1911. The Lord Chairman of Committees himself said in that debate in the other place, when referring to the decision that had just been made not to accept the amendment of this House that he had:
very considerable misgivings about the proposal … and its possible effect on future private legislation.
Quite what lie meant by that I shall refer to later on.
I should like the House to understand the reason for clause 24. It is the first acupuncture clause to come before Parliament. I should also like the House to understand the reason for the petition of the British Acupuncture Association and the attitude that we adopted in Committee. Clause 24 was promoted to safeguard the public from infection, following an outbreak of viral hepatitis which was apparently caused by the use of a dirty hypodermic syringe needle by someone who had applied years before to join the association and who had been turned down by it. The clause requires all acupuncturists to register, irrespective of skills, qualifications and standards. It puts them in the same category as ear piercers and tattooists.
In our approach in Committee to the association's petition it is fair to say that all four members of the Committee had no specific knowledge or experience of the practice of acupuncture. Indeed, I suspect that we shared the same human prejudices against a practice of which we knew little, which was of ancient and foreign


origin and which, by its nature, was slightly discomforting—although we were assured by those with experience that that was not the case. We also shared a healthy suspicion of any attempt by a public body to impose unnecessary regulations and controls, with the accompanying bureaucracy of officials armed with powers of entry and inspection on those who practise reasonable and accepted activities. That applies particularly to qualified acupuncturists, osteopaths and chiropractors, to whose services a growing number of people are turning as an aid to healing.
It is interesting to note that in the debate on the National Health Service on 21 November 1979 in the other place Lord Cullen, replying on behalf of the Government said:
I hope that in due course arrangements may be made by which qualified chiropractors, osteopaths and acupuncturists could if they so wished, make their skills available to National Health Service patients."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 1979; Vol. 403, c. 272.]
The British Acupuncture Association claims to be regarded as the pre-eminent acupuncture body in the country. It refers to a letter that the chairman of the Association received from the British Medical Association, which said:
We would have no hesitation in stating that your Association is pre-eminent among the organisations with which we have come into contact.
The British Acupuncture Association demands of its members adherence to a code of ethics that is strictly applied under penalty of suspension or expulsion. Its training and qualifications and the methods of hygiene and sterilisation that its members apply, were cited in evidence to justify the exemption it sought.
The association argued that the clause which the county council sought to impose ignored their skills and standards and put them in the same category as tattooists, ear piercers and unqualified persons who practise acupuncture. It found that derogatory and offensive and believed that it would diminish the trust of its patients. It pointed out that it was the only body of acupuncturists to petition for exemption in the Bill. No evidence concerning the transmission of disease or malpractice was given against the association in the West Midlands. The instance of the outbreak of hepatitis which provoked clause 24 was fully considered by the Committee and it was

made clear that no member of the association was involved.
The Committee also considered a report from the Department of Health and Social Security. In recommending us to accept the county council's exemption for doctors and dentists who practise acupuncture, the Secretary of State said that it would appear to be inappropriate to extend exemption to members of a body for which the requirement for membership did not include provision for statutory registration. Statutory registration does not in itself guarantee standards or prevent infections. It does not imply qualifications or confidence. That was made clear in 1977 in a letter to the British Acupuncture Association from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) when he was Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security. In that letter he said that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 exists already to control those practitioners who are a menace to public health because of the constant lack of hygiene in their premises.
If the Department requires statutory registration of all who practise acupuncture, surely it should bring forward general legislation instead of attempting to take advantage of local authority Bills in this way. The association emphasised to us in Committee that it would welcome a national Act of Parliament providing for the registration of all qualified acupuncturists with proper standards, and that it would not welcome piecemeal legislation of this nature which would be bound to produce erratic results.
If my motion is not passed tonight it will be the first time that a positive decision by a Commons Committee has been subsequently rejected by the other place and a decision by a Private Bill Committee has been overturned by the Floor of this House. I believe that such a decision would reduce the confidence that the citizens of this country have in being able to exercise their right to petition this House for redress of grievance and protection. If it is seen that a successful petition to a Private Bill Committee of this House, requiring effort and money on the part of the petitioners, is overturned by the other place and that the House does not support its Committee's own decision, future petitioners will say to themselves "What is it worth? Why should I bother to


spend the time and money to defend what I believe to be right in order to protect myself?"
Clearly, that was also the fear of the Chairman of the Lords Committee. I believe that if my motion is not passed, that will represent a further erosion of the rights of the individual to defend himself against large bodies, elected or otherwise, by appealing to Parliament. In effect, it will represent an undermining of the role of Parliament itself. It is not just a constitutional issue but a fundamental one for our parliamentary democracy. I hope that the House will give the motion serious consideration and support it tonight.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has a very good case against the constitutional impropriety that the other place is trying to force on the House tonight. It is unacceptable that by an amendment slipped in on the bureaucratic insistence of the Department of Health and Social Security—by grace and favour of Lord Derwent—the clearly decided will of the Committee which spent days in its deliberations on this matter should be subverted by a Lords amendment in this somewhat sneaky fashion. It is carried out in a way that has not been attempted or accepted by the other place since 1903, and this was the case of the hon. Gentleman.
In the debate in the other place, Lord Aberdare expressed considerable misgivings about the underhand procedure. I shall quote what he said about this manoeuvre:
The principle of comity between the two Houses in Private Bill procedure is of very great importance for the smooth working of the system. It is for this reason that our Companion to the Standing Orders, on page 176, reads: If there is any disagreement between the Houses on amendments to Private Bills, the same procedure of sending reasons for disagreement is followed as for Public Bills. In modern times the policy on Private Bill legislation is so co-ordinated between the two Houses that the need for this procedure seldom, if ever, arises. Another factor is the unwritten principle, scrupulously observed, that in a Private Bill neither House re-inserts a provision which has been struck out by the other House unless by agreement between the two Houses'."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1980; Vol 404, c.1001.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I hesitated to interrupt the

hon. Gentleman earlier. It is not normal to quote from the proceedings of the other House which have taken place during the current Session.

Mr. Faulds: You have placed me in some difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the case was so well put by Lord Aberdare, who is Chairman of Committee up there, that I am at a loss as to how I can make my argument unless I may quote him in extenso.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member might use a free paraphrase. However, he has already done it.

Mr. Faulds: I am delighted that you have considered it to be a free paraphrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very relieved about that. Lord Aberdare made other comments, but I do not have time to make a free paraphrase. However, I think I have made the point that this is an unacceptable and most unusual manoeuvre to override the will of a Committee of this House.
The House may wonder why I should seek to intervene in what is primarily a procedural matter between the two Houses. Thank God, I am not one of our procedural experts. However, I have a personal interest in the Bill in two respects. It is called the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords] and I am fortunate enough to represent an interesting constituency in that part of the world. More importantly, I am probably one of the few hon. Members who regularly seek acupuncture treatment. If anyone wishes to stand up to say that he also suffers or enjoys such treatment, I hope he will do so. I am proud to make this claim, and I will tell you why.
For 20 years now, my wife and I have carefully—indeed, scrupulously—avoided the attentions of allopathic doctors. Occasionally one lands in a place where one has to seek allopathic treatment. It usually takes a long time to recover from such treatment. But my wife and I for those 20 years have sought homeopathic treatment because the sort of treatment that allopathic doctors, I find, are competent at is dealing with simple things such as syringing the ears or applying sticky plasters to the thumbs of little boys. For 20 years we have managed to avoid that excellence of attention from standard professionals in this country by seeking homeopathic treatment. I think you will


see from my excellent physical and mental condition—mens sana in corpore sano—that the treatment usually pays off and provides a good return.
During a trip to China some years ago, my parliamentary colleagues and I saw deaf children being treated by acupuncture. They were apparently restored to hearing according to the figures that we were shown. We witnessed also an operation for the removal of an enormous cyst—the size of a small football—from the inside of a woman while she was fully conscious but anaesthetised by acupuncture. I began to think that I should look into the benefits of this form of treatment. Therefore, three years ago, when I took a few days' rest from the exhaustions and toil of the House, I went to a health clinic and there I sought and received acupuncture treatment, which I found highly beneficial. Since then I have sought such treatment for a variety of reasons. I shall not go into detail, because I would hate the House to know of my many afflictions. However, acupuncture or homeopathic treatment has worked the trick for each of those afflictions in a way that in my previous experience before allopathic treatment had failed to do.
These treatments were always given by members of the British Acupuncture Association. I am strengthened in my belief in the efficacy of acupuncture treatment by the appreciation of and support of acupuncture as an effectual means of medical treatment of a distinguished gentleman named Dr. Bannerman, of the World Health Organisation. He is a most distinguished medical authority, whose writings in such magazines as "World Health" make clear his acceptance of acupuncture. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may quote his words instead of paraphrasing. It is a long article. If any of my colleagues wish to read it, I shall be happy to lend them the copy on condition that I get this valuable document back. I know the habits of some of my colleagues and I shall therefore vet their applications very carefully.
In the article, Dr. Bannerman says,
The sheer weight of evidence demands that acupuncture must be taken seriously as a clinical procedure of considerable value.
He goes on in another passage to say:

It has long been practised in the United States, but widespread interest in this and other aspects of Chinese traditional medicine awaited the reopening of significant communications between China and the United States.
Perhaps the one good thing of Nixon's Administration was that it restored that unhappy breach of relations.
Dr. Bannerman continues:
Considerable controversy has surrounded acupuncture; on the one hand, extravagant claims have been made for its efficacy while, on the other, it has been criticised for its lack of scientific standing. It has now been introduced into several developing countries and since 1976, WHO has organised training courses in China. Quite a number of Western trained doctors practise it, and there is official interest and enthusiasm, particularly from the point of view of its potential usefulness as a tool in primary health care delivery. However, there is some resistance to its acceptance by physicians. So far, it has been used with considerable success for the treatment of"—
Dr. Bannerman then deals with a number of various afflictions that have been treated by acupuncture. He continues:
With adequate logistic support, training and research facilities, acupuncture will be fully accepted in these terrorities in the foreseeable future.
I should hope that we in this country, when we have more open minds to the value of alternative medicine, will accept this practice against the resistance of the BMA, which hardly needs explaining. I hope that we in this country shall be able to benefit from alternative medicine.
In the other place, Lord Winstanley made a cheap quip while discussing the Bill. He said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: Again, I shall paraphrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lord Winstanley said that acupuncture might do very well for Chinamen but that it did not help other people very much. That is a load of unadulterated nonsense. All over the world, people have discovered the advantage of acupuncture. Why do ordinary doctors—and Lord Winstanley was an ordinary doctor before he moved down into the upper place—make such comments? Ordinary allopathic doctors have something to protect. Their practice is of intervention on a massive scale with the workings of the body either with scalpels or with drugs. That type of intervention frequently does more harm than good. All of us, if we examine our consciences, know from personal experience in our constituencies


such cases of damage that have been caused by allopathic treatment. Such doctors have reason to be concerned about the efficacy of alternative medical practices, because those practices show up the limitations of allopathic practice.
My experience of the BAA is such that I am more than satisfied that members of the BAA pursue a course of practice with their own ethical code, which is highly satisfactory. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made the constitutional element the main point of his speech. However, I deeply resent the implication that the work of those who practise in the British Acupuncture Association should require this statutory registration as if they were all chaps with dirty fingernails who use needles in a way that other needle practitioners, such as tattooists and ear piercers, do. That is a slander against the practitioners of the BAA.
I hope that we shall resist this manoeuvre by the House of Lords to get through an underhand piece of legislation. I hope that it will be resisted both for constitutional reasons and in order to defend the rights of members of the BAA to practise their properly trained skills.

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: I shall oppose the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on his excellent state of health. I am sure that that state of health is due to acupuncture. I am not against the practise of acupuncture; quite the contrary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East explained why the amendment was made. I believe that the other House was right to disagree with it, and I urge this House to uphold that judgment.
There are two separate arguments. One is whether the British Acupuncture Association register should be exempted from the clause. That is an argument about public health. The second is a constitutional agrument about whether the other House can disagree with an amendment to a Private Bill that has been passed by a Committee of this House.
My hon. Friend believes that the other

House should not disagree and should not return such a Bill to this House. It is perfectly true that in normal circumstances the other House would not disagree with such a Bill and return it to this House, but the circumstances were not normal.
The clause was debated in Committee but not on the Floor of the House. The motions referring to the clause were never called. I was here on one occasion when the Bill was debated. The part of the Bill dealing with processions was debated for such a length of time that the clause dealing with acupuncture was never reached. We have not previously had the opportunity to discuss the subject.
My hon. Friend is the only hon. Member in this new Parliament who had the opportunity to discuss whether the BAA register should be exempted from the clause. He is the sole surviving member of the Committee that considered the Bill.

Mr. David Atkinson: We worked very hard.

Mr. Cadbury: I am sure that that is so.
To say that the other House has overreached itself is to ignore the fact that this House did not have an opportunity to express its collective view, one way or the other. By sending the Bill back to us, the other House has given us that opportunity. I believe that the other House has behaved properly and that the constitutional points raised by my hon. Friend are not valid.
The debate is about public health. It would therefore be helpful to trace the origins of the Bill and its progress. Reference has been made to the incident that gave rise to the Bill. In 1977 there was an outbreak of hepatitis, when 34 cases of hepatitis B were discovered in Birmingham. They were traced to an acupuncturist who was treating up to 80 patients a day without sterilising his needles.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman claim that the fellow who applied the acupuncture on that occasion was a member of the BAA?

Mr. Cadbury: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right and that he was not a member of the BAA. I shall deal with that point later.
The fact that that acupuncturist was not sterilising his needles was a serious threat to public health. It is elementary that acupuncturists should sterilise their needles. It is horrifying that one of them did not.
That unpleasant incident prompted the West Midlands county council to include a clause in the Bill to make acupuncturists register with district councils and to make provision for regular inspection of premises. That provision would ensure that their premises had a high standard of hygiene. My hon. Friend made the point that that would not guarantee that they would sterilise their needles. However, if they knew that there would be a check to see that they were not operating out of unsatisfactory premises it would instil some degree of control over their practice.
When the Bill was first introduced in the other House late in 1978, an amendment was moved to exclude registered doctors and dentists, who were already subject to strict statutory controls by the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. In March 1979, the Bill came before the Committee, and the BAA petitioned for an exemption similar to that granted to doctors and dentists. The association wished its members to be exempted from registering their premises and being subject to inspection by district councils.
7.45 pm
The then Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s) made a report in which he said:
The Secretary of State recommends that there is no need for district councils to be empowered to register medical and dental practitioners who are already subject to statutory registration, although it would appear to be inappropriate to extend exemption from the provisions of the clause to members of a body of which the requirements for membership do not include provision for statutory registration".

It was the clear recommendation of the previous Secretary of State that the BAA should not be exempted from registration.
Surprisingly, the Committee did not seek the Secretary of State's views through his representatives who were present in Committee. The Committee did not have to do so, although it would have been normal to consult the Secretary of State on a matter of public health.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that we had the Department's submissions in writing and that they were perfectly clear? We took them into account in our decision. We did not need to call on the Department's representatives to outline further what we had in writing. We were not obliged to call on the Department's representatives.

Mr. Cadbury: I agree that there was no obligation, but it is rather strange that the Committee did not appear to take note of what the Secretary of State said on a matter of public health.
Secondly, the BAA is only one of a number of acupuncturist asssociations in the country. There is the Traditional Acupuncture Society, the International Register of Oriental Medicine and other smaller bodies. The Committee did not hear evidence from these associations and therefore had no opportunity of judging whether only one association should be singled out for special treatment. It is hardly logical or fair that one group should be exempted from registration while other groups that have advanced similar claims to high standards should receive no such exemption.

Mr. David Atkinson: My hon. Friend suggests that other acupuncture bodies sought exemption. Why did they not petition the House for an exemption clause in the way that the British Acupuncture Association did? They did not. We had only one petition for exemption. That was from the BAA.

Mr. Cadbury: That is a valid point, and I cannot explain why, However, I insist that it is unfair and illogical to discriminate between groups. It is not logical that some groups should have to register and others not. If they were all exempted, the public would have no safeguard against the sort of outbreak of hepatitis that occurred in Birmingham in 1977. The whole object of the Bill would be defeated.
My third point concerns the balance of evidence heard by the Committee. I have read the minutes of the evidence. I have also listened in Committee in the other House to the proceedings on the South Yorkshire Bill, which was similar. The contrast is remarkable. The Committee on which my hon. Friend sat heard evidence that was almost entirely


one-sided and favourable to the BAA. The evidence at the hearing of the South Yorkshire Bill gives an entirely different impression. Some of the witnesses called at the latter hearing were doctors who practised acupuncture. They were not necessarily biased against acupuncture. Almost all of the doctors, who were themselves acupuncturists, were emphatic that there should be no exemption from registration for any single group of acupuncturists. I do not feel that the Committee heard both sides of the argument.
None of the acupuncture associations has anything to fear or anything to lose from the requirement that members should be registered, provided that they are anxious that their members should practise the profession hygienically. The Bill in no way intends to discriminate against the practice of acupuncture. On the contrary, the new regulations are likely to inspire greater public confidence in the profession, and, therefore, will accelerate the full acceptance of acupuncture as an integral part of Western medical practice. That is an outcome that I, and I am sure all hon. Members, will welcome.
If the House accepts the motion, a dangerous precedent will have been created. It will have been conceded that it is proper that bodies over whose membership there is no statutory control may be exempted from the application of the law. However worthy such a body may be at the time at which the exemption is conferred upon it, there can be no guarantee that it will remain so, and that the privileges that it has won will not be abused in the future.
I should like to draw a simple parallel. If a Committee were considering a Bill for the control of environmental health in food stores, how would hon. Members feel if the Committee, having decided that Fortnum & Mason was a highly worthy and respectable establishment, proceeded to amend a clause in the Bill to exclude Fortnums, but to make Tesco, Sainsbury's and other stores comply? I am sure that the House would never agree to such an amendment.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is more security for the public in accepting the ethical standards

incumbent on members of the BAA than simply requiring a statutory registration of many possibly unqualified acupuncturists.

Mr. Cadbury: It is elementary, if there is some form of control over all acupuncturists, that the public should be given some safeguard. That is no reflection of the degree of excellence of one group of acupuncturists over another. They should be treated in the same manner.
Why should the House agree to confer exemption from the law on one group of acupuncturists, over which there is no statutory control and which can change its conditions of membership at will? Conferring such exemptions would be illogical.
I believe that the House would be failing in its duty to protect the public health if it upheld this unfortunate amendment. I therefore urge the House to vote against it.

Mr. Dan Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman spoke before me, and not after me. His interpretation of the law changed my mind. I can see his point of view that there was no arrogance in the dismissal of the claim, but that it was simply being referred back to the House. We must all agree that that is a common practice which we rarely can ignore. I have changed my mind in that direction.

Mr. Faulds: It is not a common practice at this stage of a Private Member's Bill. It has been unheard of since 1903. That is borne out by the declaration of Lord Aberdare.

Mr. Jones: I agree with that. I said that it is common practice in the House for measures to be returned from the Lords to this Chamber for further consideration. In any case, whether it is a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, the procedure that has been accepted by successive Governments over the years can hardly be wrong.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) put forward a reasonable argument about acupuncturists. Some who wish to practise acupuncture are hardly qualified in terms of honour and healing ethics. I know about acupuncture in Hong Kong. I have had sessions with the Chinese who practise acupuncture there. Those people are


highly reputable, and I have read about many cures that they have effected. In that respect I am happy to support the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in bringing the matter to the attention of the House so that it can be properly discussed. At the same time I ask him, not only with respect, but with a sense of fraternity, to pursue the matter. If the regulations on hygiene, cleanliness and so on are adhered to, I believe—from the people to whom I have spoken in Hong Kong—that it can make a valuable contribution to the health of the nation. I do not find it necessary to denigrate the orthodox medical profession. One does not have to denigrate the one to extol the other. One has only to consider the thousands of people who are cured in hospitals to realise the vast contribution of the orthodox medical profession to society.
I recommend that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East should re-examine the matter. My first impression was different. I intended to go into the Lobby with him. I now ask him to reconsider the matter and to bring the matter before the House again, on the principle of the value of acupuncture to society.

8 pm

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I simply wish to enter a short caveat, possibly because I was in China with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) who spoke so vividly about acupuncture. My object in doing so is that I am considering not simply acupuncturists, but osteopaths also. There should be a recognised standard of the BAA, and if other bodies wish to register they can do so. But to seek to legislate to give local councils powers to search and examine is a constricting attitude. It takes away the freedom of the individual to choose the acupuncturist or the osteopath that he wishes to treat him.
I am intervening because of the strong feeling of some very distinguished osteopaths in my constituency. I should like the Minister's assurance that there will not be a closed shop for the medical profession. I hope that we will be able to give freedom to osteopaths and acupuncturists, and give the individual the freedom to choose the acupuncturist that he would like to treat him. I should have thought that it could have been done by allowing a proper register of acu-

puncturists and osteopaths. Some difficulty is caused when people walk in and make inquiries, and this could be very harmful to the practice of this branch of medicine. I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will give the freedom to acupuncturists and osteopaths to practise in freedom without restriction.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): Perhaps it would be helpful if I said at the beginning that the Government have nothing against acupuncture or osteopathy. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on the question that he raised about osteopaths. I hope to be able to give him the assurances which he sought.
I noted what the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said about acupuncture. I was impressed by his experiences. However, he has slightly more flesh to pierce than I have, and that fact might deter me a little from seeking the cure that obviously worked so well for him.
There have been two objections to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) seeks to do. At this stage I must say that my Department supports my hon. Friend in seeking to resist this amendment. The two objections have been first on constitutional ground, and secondly, on the merits of the case. On the constitutional ground I should end the conspiracy theory about the House of Lords by making it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) wrote a letter to the House of Lords asking whether the House of Commons might have an opportunity to reconsider this matter. The House of Lords acceded to that request. Therefore, I do not believe that any allegation can be made in this case that the House of Lords is seeking to frustrate the will of the House of Commons.

Mr. Faulds: That does not lessen the impropriety of what has happened. The House of Lords has adopted a procedure which has not been followed for years since the reform of the other place. The Minister is making use of that improper manoeuvre to get the will of the Committee changed when that Committee deliberated on this matter for many days.

Sir G. Young: In a few moments I shall submit that this case warrants the procedure in that the House of Lords had come to one decision in dealing with the South Yorkshire Bill, and had refused to grant the exception, and at the same time the House of Commons had come to a totally different decision in respect of the West Midlands Bill. This gives no guidance at all for future petitioners. Therefore, it seemed right that this House should have the opportunity to consider the case on its merits and see whether we could rationalise the position and come to a coherent decision which would guide future petitioners.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and those who have supported him will seek to win their case on merit, rather than try to get it through without proper debate and perhaps without a vote in this House.
I turn to the merits of the case and express the concern that the Government would feel if the Bill went through as it stands. I digress a little to give the history of the matter. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and it completed its Commons Committee stage before the dissolution. It was the subject of a carry-over motion to enable it to continue in the new Parliament.
Following an outbreak of hepatitis in Birmingham in mid-1977, caused by the use of unsterilised needles by a single acupuncturist, the West Midlands county council included in the Bill a clause whose effect was that no one should practise acupuncture unless he and his premises were registered by the appropriate district council. The clause empowered district councils to make byelaws for the purpose of securing the cleanliness of the premises, equipment and persons.
My Department, which was then in different hands, offered no objection to this initiative by the West Midlands county council in seeking powers to regulate acupuncturists and their premises. This initiative was designed to protect the public from the risk of unhygienic acupuncture.
In a report to the Lords Committee on the Bill, the Secretary of State recommended exclusion of registered medical and dental practitioners, some of whom practise acupuncture, from application of

the relevant clause. This was because doctors and dentists are already subject to statutory regulation, whereas most acupuncturists are not medically qualified or subject to statutory regulation, and may have no formal training of any kind. The recommendation was accepted by the Lords Committee.
The British Acupuncture Association and Register Limited petitioned the House of Commons saying that, if registered medical practitioners and dentists were to be excluded from the operation of the clause, its own members should equally be exempted on the ground of their alleged reputation, international recognition and qualifications. In his report to the House of Commons which took account of the petition, the former Secretary of State said:
The Secretary of State recommends that there is no need for district councils to be empowered to register medical and dental practitioners who are already subject to statutory registration, although it would appear to be inappropriate to extend exemption from the provisions of the clause to members of a body of which the requirements for membership do not include provision for statutory registration".

As has been said in the debate, the BAAR is merely one of several non-medical and non-statutory acupuncture bodies.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons heard the evidence of the petitioners and the representations of their counsel on 13 and 14 March last year. Officials of my Department were present throughout the proceedings but were not invited, as Standing Orders would have permitted, to explain why in the Secretary of State's view the petition should not be granted. After deliberation, the Committee announced that the petition had been allowed.
However, Committees are required by Standing Orders to notice ministerial recommendations in their reports to the House, and, if they do not accept them, to state their reasons. In this case the report states that the recommendation of the Secretary of State was adopted, but, in view of what I have said, I submit that that is not the case. I regard it as a matter of principle that exemptions from the law should not be granted in privately-promoted legislation, as much as in any other, to organisations or


members of organisations which have not themselves been statutorily created and for the membership and conduct of which there is no statutory control. I think that this view must commend itself to any hon. Member who has considered the implications of not adopting that principle.
We are not here to consider the merits of the BAAR or even whether those who are members of it are likely always to practise their profession hygienically and so present no risk to their patients or the public at large. We are here to consider whether—as both Houses have determined—it is desirable that acupuncturists practising in the West Midlands should be required to be registered, have their premises registered and be subject to bye-laws ensuring that their premises are clean.
It would be desirable that some acupuncturists who are not otherwise statutorily registered or subject to statutory controls should be exempted from this registration and that others should not. If we accept the principle as I have enunciated it, we cannot stand by the amendment of the House of Commons which provided that the members of the BAAR should be exempted from the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Dan Jones: Many of us believe that there can be a healthy compromise. Could not the Minister give his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) an undertaking that if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment the DHSS will take over the measure and see it safely to the statute book under the conditions that the Minister himself has prescribed?

Sir G. Young: I am not sure that I can give that assurance in quite those terms. I think that my hon. Friend sought exemption for acupuncturists, but I have made it clear that we are not minded at this stage to exempt them when doctors and dental practitioners, who are statutorily registered, have to conform to stringent requirements. We have nothing against acupuncturists, but I cannot say that we will exempt them from statutory controls at a time when other medical practitioners have to submit to them.
Another Committee in another place recently considered a petition of the same association against a similar clause in the South Yorkshire Bill. It heard the argu-

ments of the petitioners at length and the counter arguments of the promoters. Unlike the Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East was a member—a singularly accident-prone Committee—it heard the representatives of my right hon. Friend express his views on why the petition should not be allowed.

Mr. David Atkinson: Would my hon. Friend care to enlarge on that description of my Committee?

Sir G. Young: Yes, indeed. Nothing offensive was meant. It seems that none of them survived the last election, apart from my hon. Friend. That Committee disallowed the petition. So we now have two Committees that have reached contrary conclusions on the same issue. Whatever may be our pride, I urge hon. Members to accept that the decision of the Committee of the other place on this point of principle was correct and that the decision taken by the Committee of the last House of Commons was wrong.
The other place took an unusual step, as I readily concede, by seeking to discuss with this House the exceptional implications of this amendment. But, as was said in another place, such a step has a precedent, although one has to go back to 1903 for it. I am sure that what was done in another place was right. There can be no doubt that we require the opportunity that we have tonight to consider what is an important issue of principle. Now that we have the opportunity, I hope that we shall use it to reverse the amendment of the last House of Commons. If this is done, promoters of other Bills containing parallel clauses will know what is the will of Parliament and will not be under any obligation imposed by the unfortunate precedent created by this amendment to emulate. I ask my hon. Friend, in the light of the debate, to consider withdrawing his proposition.

Mr. Clement Freud: I have listened to the debate with care. I wished particularly to hear the explanation by the Minister.
One had grave misgivings on two points. The first is the constitutional point. There is no validity in denigrating the identities of the members of the Committee simply because three of them


either lost their seats at the last election or did not stand again. What seems to me important is that the Committee was set up by the House of Commons to investigate an issue. It investigated at great length. I have read the minutes of evidence taken before the Opposed Private Bill Committee, as has the Minister. I believe that the Committee satisfied itself that the British Acupuncture Association was a proper and reputable association.
One is obviously apprehensive about doing something that has not been done since 1903. I believe it is wrong to accept advice from the other place. I read the debate in the other place as well. Like the hon. and afflicted Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I have little sympathy with the statement by my noble Friend Lord Winstanley and his lighthearted remark that acupuncture was something that the Chinese did and that it did not work anywhere else.
The real issue of this debate is whether the British Acupuncture Association takes sufficient care for it to be above the inspection of a local authority. Perhaps, at this moment, one may even consider whether a local authority is sufficiently expert to look at an acupuncturist and come to a realistic decision. Looking at the evidence given, it seems clear that acupuncturists from this country take great care. No one is allowed to practise acupuncture without supervision unless he has been doing it for two years. This is a proper provision. I accept it.
I am a little less happy about the accommodation that is given acupuncturists from other countries. I have listened with care to what the Minister says. I shall give way if he cares to intervene.

Sir George Young: I had intended to intervene on the constitutional point. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal spokesman in the House of Lords supported the course of action on which we are embarked this evening?

Mr. Freud: I think that the Minister read his brief beautifully. I wish he had listened to me. That is what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap".] It is cheap to insult the political party of a man simply because a Minister is sufficiently deaf not to hear what has been said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] That is exactly what happened.
I was interested to hear the report of the hon. Member for Warley, East about acupuncture and deafness. I also went to China on a parliamentary delegation. It is important to state, before a great deal of hope is given to deaf children, that research shows that, while there was a temporary relief of deafness in children, what usually occurred was that, as a result of a subsequent cold or influenza, or worse, the deafness returned and, in some cases, was worse than before. I mention this simply because I have a number of deaf constituents who were fascinated by the findings of the home to which I went and made inquiries.

Mr. Faulds: I do not wish to question the bedtime reading of the hon. Gentleman. That was not the report that we had on our visit to China. Perhaps next time we can go together.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that intervention.

Mr. Faulds: Invitation.

Mr. Freud: I believe that the issue is bound up, not with the competence or otherwise of acupuncture, but with the care of the British Acupuncture Association. That is what the House must concentrate upon when voting.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intervene briefly to pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). My hearing of the Minister's speech—he read it well and I agree with it—was not that anything dangerous or anything more dangerous, is likely to be done by acupuncturists than by other people in the medical professions that they should be relieved of the responsibility on people in other medical professions to being supervised and inspected. Nothing that he said is an aspersion on British acupuncturists.
There is no insult in referring to one hon. Member as afflicted and others as accident prone. The idea that two years supervised practice in any profession is sufficient could presumably be extended to doctors, dentists and the rest. I do not think that the hon. Member's speech takes us much further on the issue.

Question, That this House doth insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, put and negatived.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]

Mr. Eric Ogden: Now, Sir.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. David Alton: rose—

Mr. Ogden: The Question was put from the Chair.

Mr. Alton: I was on my feet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Alton.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Question was put from the Chair and put to the vote and two of us called, we should make a decision. If it was not, perhaps you will allow one hon. Member to move it before you agree to one hon. Member opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) should not tell me what goes on in Merseyside. He should look after Rochdale.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not having heard what the hon. Gentleman proposes to say, I can hardly rule on what he is saying.

Mr. Alton: I should like to draw the attention of the House to part II, lines 7 to 31, of schedule 3 to the County of Merseyside Bill. I attempted to move an amendment deleting the sections that deal with the Corporation of Liverpool Act 1966 that is now being enacted through this Bill. That amendment, unfortunately, was not accepted. I feel so strongly about these clauses and their implications that I must take the opportunity of opposing this section of the Bill even though I agree with many points in the Bill.
I have been opposed to the concept of a Liverpool inner ring road since it was introduced in place of the former Liverpool inner motorway scheme. I opposed the Bill when I was a member of the Merseyside county council. I

opposed the Bill on the Liverpool city council, of which I am still a member. I petitioned the Bill when it went to another place 18 months ago. I applied successfully for an Adjournment debate, and was grateful for the opportunity to air the matter.
We have progressed no further because, at this last-ditch attempt, we are about to enact a Bill that will deprive citizens of the opportunity of a public inquiry to air their grievances against the construction of the road. It is better to have a city without byelaws than a city that has a Berlin wall through its centre.
The Bill removes the right of public inquiry for hundreds and hundreds of citizens whose businesses and homes will be demolished to make way for a scheme that will cost £40 million. That staggering cost is to be embarked upon at a time when ratepayers are being asked to find a 65 per cent. increase if they live in the city of Liverpool.
It is about time that the Merseyside county council came out of its dream world into the real world. It is about time that the Government ended the longest running farce in local government by scrapping the scheme once and for all. The scheme was conceived in the 1960s by politicians and planners with delusions of grandeur. At that time it was to have been called an inner motorway. It, and schemes like it, accounted for the loss of 100,000 people from the centre of Liverpool. They were shanghaid to towns and suburbs outside the city. The scheme was opposed by my colleagues on the Liverpool city council. The campaign was led by Councillor Trevor Jones and his wife Doreen, who is the Lord Mayor of Liverpool.
Those thrown out of the city found themselves left in wildernesses where they were unhappy. The scheme was a dream which turned into a nightmare. The scheme was dropped ultimately by the county council, but not for long. It revamped it in different clothing and it returned as the Liverpool inner ring road.
Among its chief promoters was the then chairman of the highways and tunnels committee, Councillor Hubert Harriman, whose firm was involved in its design. It was paid a fee of £50,000. The


county council was denied access to documents which discredited the scheme. The documents were drawn up by staff of the county planning officer and the county engineer. They were not given to county councillors, on the ground that they would find them too complicated to understand.
I have with me a copy of technical document No. 25, which was not made available to county councillors when they considered the scheme. I have referred to the document before. I am sorry to have to bore the Minister with the same argument, but I hope that he will be more convinced on this occasion than he was on the previous occasion. I wish to allude to sections of the document to substantiate my case. My opinions are those of a layman and politician who has consistently opposed the scheme. It is far better to give the opinions of those who have some professional knowledge.
The report states:
Chapter 27 presents the results of an identification survey of all existing private sector businesses (excluding public houses) which will be displaced by the development of the Inner Ring Road, together with the results of an interview survey with approximately one-third of them. The scheme examined will displace 52 firms employing 400–450 persons.
That, in a city where about 12 per cent. of the population is without work. The report continues:
An additional displacement of 12 firms (approximately 100 jobs) is possible if identified options are implemented. Job losses are heaviest among manufacturing, building and joinery, and other service firms and are concentrated in the Berry Street and Jamaica Street areas. We estimate that of the 400–450 jobs probably displaced, 55 per cent. might be retained in the central or inner areas. Fifteen per cent. might be retained in Liverpool and 30 per cent. lost to the local economy.
The firms affected were interviewed by the county council and they said that they would face 100–200 per cent. increases in rents if they were relocated.
It might be said in favour of the road that it could provide job opportunities in Liverpool, as people might be needed for the construction of the road. It might be argued also that it would improve accessibility to factories, firms and sites in the city. However, the report disproved those theories.
The report continues:
the loss of any further jobs must be regarded as a serious disbenefit in the context of inner Liverpool … accessibility is not a major problem for the firms interviewed and any improvements could only have limited benefits for them. A company's level of activity and operating costs are determined by a number of factors, among which access and transport costs are not particularly significant. The savings in costs and time associated with a road of this type are minimal at the level of individual firms, and there is no evidence that the activities of the firms would be affected in any substantial way. … The industrial image of inner Liverpool, as seen by firms operating there, is almost entirely negative and the Ring Road could have an impact on this in two ways.
The report discusses the significance that the road might have on the city's image. It states:
There is little evidence to support the view that this form of public sector investment would create confidence in the area and stimulate private investment. … The most effective assistance from the public sector to firms operating in the area would seem to be the provision of sites, the creation of an atmosphere of security, financial assistance, and motorway links.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with great care. It is obviously a matter about which he feels strongly. He and other hon. Members are concerned about all that is happening in Liverpool and Merseyside. However, does he not agree that the question of the inner ring road, important though it is, is not really a subject with which it is correct to occupy the House at this time on this particular day? The Bill is virtually a co-ordinatory and consolidatory Bill of byelaws going back many years.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the arguments about the inner ring road, to which we have listened with great interest—we know his interest in espousing the cause at every opportunity—fit into the debate. Will he move on to his objection to the Bill?

Mr. Alton: No, certainly not. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) had been present at the beginning of my remarks, he would have heard me say why I am expressing my opposition in this way and why I am having to use this opportunity yet again to raise these arguments about the inner ring road.
If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about those living in his constituency, he would wish to try to save them from the 65 per cent. rate increase that they will probably be inflicted with this year. He would be trying to save the further displacement of jobs. This is it not my argument but that of the Merseyside county council's planning department. The argument is contained in its private technical report. If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about the state of inner Liverpool—he has frequently talked about empty sites and the need to clear up derelict land—he would be trying to do something to bring firms back on to the sites. He would be arguing against the building of a road that nobody wants.
Liverpool may have problems, but traffic congestion is not one of them. If Liverpool were given £40 million to spend in other ways, life and vitality could be brought back into the city. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting the worst form of municipalisation. He and others who support the road will steal the businesses and the homes of those living in the inner city. They will be displaced as 100,000 others were displaced before them. That is an almost criminal act.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it entirely in order, according to the rules and conventions of the House, that an hon. Member should accuse another hon. Member of stealing the livelihood and the business of anyone else? I think we know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) means, but perhaps he can frame his point in slightly different language.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not casting any aspersions upon the honour of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). I think that the hon. Gentleman was making a debating point.

Mr. Alton: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would never cast any aspersion on the honour of the hon. Member for Wavertree. I am sometimes concerned about his sanity but not about his honour. In the context of the discussion of the Liverpool inner ring road I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman has consistently supported the project when most of his constituents, the Liverpool

city council and local newspapers have courageously advocated their opposition to it all the way along the line. I do not believe that in that sense he represents local opinion.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) also point out that alongside the opposition to the ring road from the Liberal Party in Liverpool the Labour Party there also opposes it as does the Communist Party? The only party that supports it is the Tory Party.

Mr. Alton: I do not have the links that I know Liverpool Labour Party often has with the Communists, so I do not know what the Communist view is. The hon. Member for Scotland Exchange has been a consistent opponent of this road and I congratulate him on that. It is true that the Liverpool borough Labour Party, having supported the concept of the Liverpool motorway scheme under the leadership at that time of Councillor, now Lord Sefton, later took a different view. It is quite right that it did come round to our way of thinking and opposed this scheme and I congratulate it.
It was pointed out in the report of the technical officers that the most effective assistance from the public sector to the firms operating in the area would be the provision of sites, the creation of an atmosphere of security, financial assistance and motorway links. The primary requirements of firms coming to inner Liverpool are sites and a suitable supply of labour. The report points out that if the road goes ahead 4 per cent. less land will be available for new development and that a 22 per cent. greater loss of existing development land will be sustained. Both options contained in the inner ring road scheme result in more than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interupt the hon. Gentleman but will he please let the Chair know to which part of the Bill he is referring? I cannot find anything in it about ring roads.

Mr. Alton: I am referring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to schedule 3, part II, consequential amendments in the Liverpool Corporation Act 1966 and schedule 4, lines 35 to 37 of that Act. The powers


in the Bill are those required to continue the implementation of the 1966 Act in acquiring properties for the construction of the Liverpool inner ring road.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The argument used by the hon. Member for Edge, Hill deals with the powers provided by the Bill. Those powers could be powers to provide anything from power stations to small firms. The hon. Member is talking about powers and trying to use that as an opportunity to debate anything he wishes. What the hon. Member is talking about has nothing to do with the Bill. He is using time that this Bill could command to exploit a particular point. The point may concern him and many other people, but he is discussing it at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the use of the powers. I take it that that is what he is doing. I have not had an opportunity of checking the Liverpool Corporation Act 1966, to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention, but I am sure that he is correct in what he has said.

Mr. Alton: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the appropriate legislation which was enacted 14 years ago with the express purpose of constructing the inner motorway. It is to that point that I shall come in a short time. However, I should like to go back to what I said before. Both options result in more than 240,000 sq. metres of currently vacant land and 100,000 sq. metres of temporarily used land coming into use for a road, and not for small businesses or homes or to improve the quality of the environment. It is simply for a road that will go nowhere and which no one will ever use.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are 1,800 acres of vacant, dormant and derelict land in the Liverpool boundaries and that about 900 acres are in the hands of nationalised industries, such as British Rail and the gas authority, as well as the local authority? It is right to say that the ring road will use some of that land, but surely it is better to use some of the vacant land for

some purpose than to use none of it for any purpose.

Mr. Alton: That is a crazy argument. It is rather like saying that we should build igloos throughout the city of Liverpool because it would be a way of spending money. The attitude that money grows on trees, and that one should just throw money away without worrying about the quality of the work one does, is the sort of atitude which has got Liverpool in the mess which it is in because of successive Conservative and Labour administrations there.
I again quote from the technical report, which states:
The valuation and job opportunity analyses confirm the above. Marginal improvements in land value as a result of easier assembly of sites, the availability of services and some improved access if the road is built is not likely to be sufficient to offset real value losses as a result of demolition".

Those are the views of the county council's own planning department, which were ignored by the Merseyside county council itself. In its conclusion the report states:
In sum, consideration of these four areas of major economic impact suggest that it will be difficult to quantify, or ever identify, substantial economic development benefits that will lead to increases in industrial and commercial activity and levels of employment either among indigenous firms or as a result of attracting new firms to inner Liverpool. The main areas of benefit are likely to be confined to the construction sector and on the few remaining development sites which can be assembled and released".

In other words, the benefits would be very superficial indeed, but the long term damage to the city would be considerable.
I now turn to the arguments that were put forward in favour of the road by the county engineer.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has a duty to confine himself to the clauses in the Bill. He has cited the schedule, which sets out the powers which the county council may have to do any number of things. He is now reading an article dealing with the inner ring road, which he says is one of the powers which the county council could use to build an inner ring road. It could build anything it liked. But this has nothing to do with the Bill that is before us. The county council may or may not use a power in the


schedule of the Bill to do something which the hon. Gentleman does not want to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can instruct me as to what his position is in the matter.

Mr. Alton: Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to part II of schedule 3—consequential amendments to the Bill—which appears on page 138. Those are the powers that are to be vested in the Merseyside county council to acquire properties in order to proceed with the construction of the Liverpool inner ring road.
I am trying to give the House some idea of the disadvantages to the city of Liverpool of constructing the road. I have referred to the arguments placed before the county council by its own staff. I now come to the views of the city planning officer. They are all arguments why we should not proceed with the construction of the road and, therefore, why we should not proceed with the acquisition of property in order to build it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): So far I have been reluctant to interrupt. I thought that it was better to let the hon. Gentleman make his speech. However, he moved immediately into arguments against building the road. I hope that he accepts that the decision to build the road is entirely a local authority matter. It is a matter for the Merseyside county council, as the responsible highway authority. This is not a trunk road for which the Government are responsible. It is not a project for which the Government are answerable to the House or are in any way directly involved. We give a grant for it, but no more. The last time we had an Adjournment debate on this matter, in July, the hon. Gentleman made exactly the same quotations from the same report, which he has been using for many years in Liverpool. I thought he conceded that this matter was to be decided in the chamber of the Merseyside county council. It has nothing to do with Westminster, or our role as Members of Parliament.

Mr. Alton: I totally disagree with this Pontius Pilate style of government, where people want to wash their hands of responsibility. As £40 million of ratepayers and taxpayers' money is being spent, we

have a moral and legal obligation to ensure that that money is wisely spent. The Government could withdraw the grant to the county council if they did not think that this was a wise road scheme. This evening we have the opportunity, by opposing the Bill, to prevent the road going ahead. Therefore, Parliament is the arbiter. Parliament finally decides. That is why I petitioned the other place and why I tried to stop the road from proceeding.
The key argument was put by the county engineer in a report written by Ian Craig, the local government editor of the Liverpool Daily Post last year. He wrote:
The key argument used by county engineer Mr. Ronald Williams to justify such a major ring road is the prediction that by 1998, despite dropping population and jobs, a 43 per cent. increase in city centre traffic would produce widespread congestion'.

In fact, according to statistics prepared by the ring road team itself, the growth in traffic may be as low as 11 per cent. and the most it could be would be 43 per cent.

The city planning officer, disputing the county's predictions, says a basic weakness is the use of the maximum possible increase.

'Growth estimates of between 11 per cent. and 43 per cent. by 1998 were produced, yet the figure of 43 per cent. growth is used without question in the report as a basis for justifying the need for the ring road,' says Mr. Evans.

And he says that such long-term forecasts are 'notoriously unreliable' anyway and points to remarks made by the county's own planning department, saying there is uncertainty about forecasting things like the number of cars.

Other points Mr. Evans makes are:
That the London Road shopping area would be seriously hit by the ring road with most of its shops removed.

That the road would mean unnecessary job losses, with at least 50 firms hit, and would harm the environment.

He also says that despite the ring road's planned size, it would not necessarily even speed up traffic movement.

Mr. Evans says he would be apprehensive if the city agreed to the present ring road plan which would be 'wasteful, representing a misuse of financial resources'.

He feels an honourable compromise to outright opposition, which could create more uncertainty, would be to scrap the grand plans and simply improve some of the present roads.
Those are the views of the city planning officer.
The method employed in the Bill to deny people the right of basic appeal and


public inquiry before their properties are stolen from them is tantamount to using totalitarian methods. The reports were suppressed. Neither the city councillors nor the county councillors had that information before them when they arrived at their decision. We should send the Bill back for further consideration, on the basis that people were misled and did not have that information.
Far more important, this is a monstrous denial of rights. It is a different scheme, affecting different properties. When Parliament granted these powers 14 years ago it certainly did not intend them to be used in this high-handed way. It is an iniquitous Bill, which threatens the basic rights of British citizens. It allows homes and businesses to be stolen and bulldozed without the right to public inquiry. For that reason I oppose the Bill, despite the fact that there are many clauses in it with which I obviously agree. I would rather have the city in its present condition, dealing with its present byelaws, than see the Bill implemented with this iniquitous clause in it. It creates a disgraceful situation in the city of Liverpool.

Mr. David Hunt: On a point of order. Does the hon. Member not think that it is rather irresponsible to raise this matter at such a late stage, and could he perhaps explain to the House why, when making a petition to the House of Lords, he did not appear to his petition? In the Minutes of that Committee there is a call for him to appear and when he did not do so the Chairman reluctantly had to strike out his petition. Was that not the stage at which he should have made the objections that he is now making?

Mr. Alton: I think that it would be rather more irresponsible for the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) to intervene at this late moment in this debate, not having listened to the arguments.

Mr. Hunt: I was there.

Mr. Alton: I apologise to the hon. Member. It seemed to me that he had taken his seat just at that moment. It seemed to me that to come here and suggest in this way that I have not consistently opposed this scheme is ludicrous, when I pointed out at the beginning of

my speech my consistent record in opposing it. I did indeed write to the other place and place before it—the hon. Member has my letter in his hand—an outline of my objections. I have constantly given my reasons for opposition to this scheme.
It would be far better for us tonight to agree to the removal of these clauses and to allow the Bill to go through. This would be a responsible move on our part. I did attempt to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Wirral well knows.
He knows that I moved an amendment that was not selected, for reasons that Mr. Speaker can give himself and that I fully understand. Nevertheless, the amendment was moved and I attempted to have a special debate on this specific subject. That being so, I had no choice this evening but to state my opposition in this way.
I do feel strongly about £40 million being squandered when, in my constituency, we have 30 per cent. Unemployment—12 per cent. in the city—when home helps and meals on wheels services are being closed down, teachers are being sacked, and many local government services are to be cut.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot recognise many of those items in the Bill.

Mr. Alton: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps provoked.
I am opposed to this frivolous scheme for these reasons. Conservative Members talk so often about spending people's money wisely. I wish that on this occasion they would think in terms of making one expenditure cut which would be welcomed by the people of Liverpool.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) for that warm expression of feeling. I do not know whether it was directed at me or at the passing of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It is not that I am grateful; it is simply that I believe in hon. Members having the right to speak.

Mr. Ogden: The purpose of this debate, as I understand it after having served some time in this House, is to provide an opportunity for the House to debate the Third Reading of this Bill and to decide whether to give it a Third Reading. It is not in our power to decide to delete any part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is perfectly entitled to do whatever he likes, within parliamentary procedure, to withhold or to give his support. I suggest that he is fighting what is perhaps the right battle—about the inner ring road—but on the wrong battlefield. I will explain that in a little while.
The question is whether we should give the Bill—this modest tome of 16 parts, 146 sections, five schedules, and 149 pages—which has been around the corridors of the Palace of Westminster since 1978, a Third Reading. If anyone in Merseyside asks a Merseyside Member what he did in the Parliaments of 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, he can say that he considered the County of Merseyside Bill, and that should be more than sufficient explanation.
The Bill has been considered and debated. It has been dissected and put together again. It has had more consideration than has any other piece of legislation in the past 15 years. If Government legislation were given half the scrutiny that the Bill has received, it would be much better. During the parliamentary progress of the Bill the past chairman of the county council, now Lord Sefton, the present chairman of the county council, Sir Kenneth Thompson, a former Member of the House, the parliamentary agents, the Officers of the House and the officers of the county council have been readily available to Merseyside Members of Parliament and to Members of Parliament from all parts of the country, to discuss difficulties with them, agree alterations and improvements and to allay understandable and perhaps ill-founded worries and fears about the Bill's finer points.
The Bill renews the powers of the county council which lapsed because of an Act of Parliament. It is no empire-building exercise by the county council. The hon. Member for Edge Hill seems to have overlooked the fact that the Bill provides for a considerable degree of discretion on how the powers that remain

in the hands of the county council are used. That is a key point. From now on, how the Bill is used by the Merseyside county council for the people of Merseyside on Merseyside must be decided in Merseyside and not in the House.
During the past 15 years no one has accused me or my hon. Friends of being careless about the spending of public money. There are times when decisions have to be taken locally and times when they have to be taken here. How the Bill is used should be decided on Merseyside, not in the House of Commons. My electors did not send me to Westminster, 200 miles away, so that I should run from Westminster the Merseyside district council or county council elections. Merseyside Members of Parliament will continue to take an interest in the Bill and in what happens to it outside, just as we have taken a keen interest in it from inside the House. The sooner it is realised that county councils are supposed to be run by county councillors and district councils by district councillors, and that we in Westminster cannot significantly affect or decide the day-to-day running of the councils, the better it will be for local government and Members of Parliament.

Mr. Alton: We are considering a Bill that takes away a right of public inquiry. It takes away the right of members of the public to appeal against the acquisition of their homes and businesses. Should not that be a concern of Merseyside Members of Parliament? Does the hon Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) support those clauses?

Mr. Ogden: Yes, because I believe that if the people of Merseyside allow a certain county council to be elected, that is their responsibility, right and duty. If they decide that a certain district council should be elected, that is their decision which I would try to influence, but surely we do not have local councils so that Members of Parliament can tell them what to do. It might be part of the philosophy of the hon. Member for Edge Hill to tell his electors that he will sort out their roads, their grids and so on. We have an interest in it, but it is not the duty of a Member of Parliament to decide the day-to-day administration of local government. If we do that, why bother to have a county council? Why


bother to have a district council? Let it all be run from Merseyside. I could be appointed commissioner for Merseyside tomorrow and I should be delighted, but I do not know what others would think. We should not be told that we have the duty of influencing decisions without power to carry them through.

Mr. Parry: I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that the Merseyside group of Labour Members of Parliament have it on record that they are totally opposed to the construction of the ring road.

Mr. Ogden: I happen to be the secretary of the Merseyside group of Labour Members of Parliament. I wrote that decision down and do not need to be reminded of it.

Mr. Parry: I moved it.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) moved it and I wrote it down. But it is not the person who makes the decisions who decides what happens but the person who writes down the decisions a month or so later. Of course we are agreed on this. All I am saying is that I have grave doubts. This matter has to be dealt with on Merseyside and not across the Floor of the House.
The county council offices are just as bad. There were rumours—we know that this is a place of rumour and great mystery—that the hon. Member for Edge Hill was supposed to have tabled a blocking motion and that the whole Bill would go because he did not like one part of it. The reaction of the county council was to panic—it has a thing about the hon. Member for Edge Hill. My good lady thinks that he is lovely. I could suggest that she needs another pair of spectacles, but that is something else. But the county council offices start sending in screeds of detail about the inner ring road, and of course it will be useful but not in the House of Commons unless we decide, as well we might, to abolish the county councils and the district councils and sort everything out here. That is the choice.
I was not elected to run the offices of the district, city or county council, but I shall have my say back on Merseyside

later. I do not usually swear and would not be allowed to do if I wanted to, but I consider that one-third of the time of any Member of Parliament from Merseyside is spent on local government or county council matters that officially have nothing to do with a Member of Parliament. Houses, gates, roads and the rest are very important—

Mr. Alton: Education.

Mr. Ogden: Yes. We have an influence there to some extent. But others, better paid and with more time than ourselves—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I imagine that those people are not mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Ogden: They form part of the schedule to the third section of the fifth part—and so on.
If we spend our time doing the work of others, there will be much less time to spend on our real job. Our duty is supposed to be to support or oppose a Government and to scrutinise legislation. Our duty is supposed to be to act as the parliamentary voice for our constituents. If we spend time doing the job of city or county councillors, there is less time to attend to our primary job.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill has doubtless filled the front, middle and back pages of the Liverpool Daily Post and the Liverpool Echo. He has confirmed his reputation in some areas. There are times when he and I agree and work closely together. But, though he is involved in the right battle, he is in the wrong place tonight. This Bill has had more time, more detailed attention, more changes and alterations than any piece of legislation I know. In the previous debate I called it the Eliza Doolittle of legislation; we have grown accustomed to her face.
There are other battles that have to be fought but not here. That is the only difference between myself and the hon. Member for Edge Hill tonight. The Bill and its use must be decided by Merseyside people in Merseyside for Merseyside. We have our part to play in that, not here in Westminster but back home. I hope that the House will give the Bill a deserved and unopposed Third Reading.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) does not like to seek any limelight, wish to receive any publicity or be heard on the radio. He merely wishes to use this debate to further a point that he fervently believes is relevant to the Bill and on which he feels that the House should hear his arguments on Third Reading. It is quite clear that he is exploiting the situation, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been extremely tolerant of the approaches in his speech which have been out of order and made at the wrong time. I wish to put on record that the hon. Gentleman is trying to advance an argument, interesting though it may be, which has nothing to do with the Bill. It may be interesting in his county council's chamber or on the streets of his constituency, but it is not appropriate in this place.
I hope that the House will reject his suggestion that the whole of the Merseyside Bill, which has been fighting to get on the statute book for one and a half years, should be delayed still further. The hon. Gentleman—perhaps understandably—has a penchant for objection to the inner ring road. The hon. Gentleman is not alone in his condemnation of the ring road. However, from discussions in my constituency, I can tell the House that au equal number of people are for the inner ring road. His analysis of the situation in Merseyside is totally wrong.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the waste of public land by the use and the building of a ring road. He does not seem to realise that the cities of Europe and North America are dependent on good infrastructure and that the purpose of the ring road is to provide, as the underground system now provides, a basic infrastructure. We hope that that infrastructure will start to attract small firms and some of the larger firms back into the inner area.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how small firms on Merseyside will survive the calamity of a possible 65 per cent. increase in rates this year? In view of that increase how does he justify spending £40 million on a road scheme?

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how the rates have in-

creased over the last decade because of Governments who have driven people out of the inner city by demolishing private homes and small firms. That means that there is less rateable land and that less rates are paid to the city treasurer's department to create prosperity and provide the services that are needed to sustain the inner area.

Mr. Parry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the building and construction of the inner ring road will drive thousands more from the inner areas?

Mr. Steen: No, I do not. That argument is completely misguided. The building of the road will create a termendous amount of employment, and it will offer a lifeline for Liverpool to create the necessary infrastructure. It will allow the derelict land of about 1,800 acres—900 acres of which is in the hands of nationalised industries and local authorities—to be built upon. It will encourage the building of homes and factories. Opposition Members who pursue that argument should remember that small firms were driven from the inner areas to the green field sites and 100,000 jobs were moved from the inner to the outer areas over the last 10 years by the programmes of successive Governments. The inner ring road is an attempt to reverse that drift.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge-hill, may not agree that it would cause people to come back to live in the inner city, but that is the purpose of the scheme. We could debate that matter at another time and in another place. However, I must put on record that the analysis of the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He believes that using a little of the derelict land will drive out the remaining firms. The reason why firms are being driven out is that the buildings that remain in Liverpool have an artificially high rent that is caused by scarcity. Firms are being driven out because the rate base is so diminished that rates have to be artificially high.
Taking a bit of land for the inner ring road will not make the situation worse for small firms. It will create the essential infrastructure to encourage a return of wealth and job creation to an ailing inner area.
The hon. Gentleman would like to see the continual slide of the inner area. His is a recipe for disaster. Although he has the best possible intentions, his assessment of the problem is misguided.

Mr. Alton: It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to accuse any hon. Member of deliberately trying to create a slide towards decay in an area that he represents—and lives in. I have been a councillor in the area for about eight years. I like to think that I am concerned to try to help its vitality.
I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to be convinced only by my arguments. He should, however, accept the arguments of the county council's technical team, whose report I read earlier, and the city planning officer, who could be regarded as some kind of authority, and the views of the elected representatives of the Liverpool city council. They do not come from the lush green pastures of Formby or the Wirral but are on the local authority dealing with the area. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with the view of the elected representative for the major area affected—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry)—and many others who feel strongly about the issue. He treats such views as if they were totally irrelevant.

Mr. Steen: We are debating a side issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. I rose merely to show that his was one of a number of views. His assessment and analysis of the problems of a city that we both represent may not be those of all hon. Members or widely held in a city of nearly half a million people. Although it has been an interesting exchange, it is wrong to use the Floor of the House to debate an issue that has nothing to do with the Bill.
I firmly believe in the ring road. It is the last chance for Liverpool to reverse a declining economic situation. There are 1,800 acres of dormant, vacant land. In the Committee corridor, the urban affairs and new towns group of the Conservative Party has mounted an excellent exhibition. It demonstrates that the inner area has been destroyed. People and small firms have moved out. The agricultural belt and green fields have been eaten away.
It is a complex macro-economic and planning problem. The hon. Gentleman approaches it in terms of just an inner ring road. That shows that he does not comprehend urban problems. The inner ring road cannot be viewed in isolation.
I know how dedicated and concerned the hon. Gentleman is. It is unfortunate that he has it wrong tonight.

Mr. Robert Parry: I make no apology for supporting the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton).
About seven-eighths of the inner ring road will pass through my constituency. That massive road will completely divide communities and isolate hundreds of people. It will cause council houses to be demolished. When the second Mersey tunnel was built, hundreds of houses were demolished and people had to move from the inner area.
It will be responsible for the demolition of small firms and businesses in the inner area and that will add to unemployment. Unemployment in some parts of my constituency is at nearly 40 per cent. That is an even higher percentage than in Edge Hill. It is tragic. More firms may be moved out of inner areas.
Construction of this road has met with the strongest and most hostile objections that I have known during many years in politics. Political parties are opposed, with the exception of the Conservative Party, to the road. Practically every tenants' association, community council, neighbourhood council, local trades council, trade union, local church—Catholic and Anglican—is opposed to the road. They oppose the destruction of their parishes. People have been born and raised in those areas.
Perhaps I have a vested interest. I was born and raised in the inner area. I still live there. This massive road is to be built in spite of strong opposition from those born and raised there—my neighbours, friends and relatives. Mass rallies have been held all over Liverpool. I assure the House that if the Minister, leader of the county council or anyone else were to attend the meetings and meet the people, they would realise that there is strong opposition right along the line.
The inner ring road is in part the responsibility of planners who live in ivory towers. They live in the nice parts of Merseyside—in the Wirral or West Derby. None of them lives in the inner areas. The road will be a nightmare. I completely disagree with the views put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). The road will not return the heart to our city. It will have the opposite effect. There is no real need for a road where it has been planned. The county council should seriously look again at this issue.
Many years ago prime land in the city centre was used for small houses—of the two up and two down type. That land could be used for rebuilding the heart of our city. Houses and small factories will help to bring back jobs. During the next few years the local city council will attempt to demolish 7,000 pre-war tenement blocks. I support that action. Thousands of people will have to be rehoused. Most of them have lived in the inner area all their lives. They still wish to remain in that area. If this land is used in order to build a motorway, it will be impossible to rebuild houses and flats in the inner city area. Where will the people be rehoused?

Mr. Steen: Is the lion. Gentleman aware that as many of the older houses have already been demolished, the population has been transferred to vast soulless council estates? The hon. Gentleman must have seen them. Those tenants all wish to return to small houses in the inner area. Whenever the council destroys, it makes a worse mess. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that should happen again?

Mr. Parry: Many years ago, local councillors for the central ward had meetings with Bill Sefton, now a noble Lord, when he was leader of Liverpool city council, before the county council was formed. We got a definite understanding that land that is now to be used for the inner ring road would, in fact, be used for building houses. Now the land has been taken away. Now there is no possibility of making some of the smaller parishes and some of the local schools viable. Some of the schools do not have enough youngsters attending them to make them viable. In spite of all the opposition the county council insists on

pressing on like a mad bull, pushing aside all objections of the people.
At a recent meeting of the county council a small group of objectors attended. Because members of that group demonstrated, they were ejected from the Liverpool town hall. I was ejected with them, and so were two local priests who were supporting them. I know that recently Sir Ken Thompson has done a U-turn on the question of the developing council and I hope that he will be big enough to consider another U-turn and recommend to the county council that it should scrap this road that nobody wants—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] I say that the road is not wanted by anybody and I have talked to a cross-section of the community, local organisations and associations and I am sure that if a petition was presented at least 100,000 people would sign it.

Mr. Ogden: I agree with a great many things that my hon. Friend says, but surely the most effective way to change the policy of the county council is to change its elected membership. Too often local people sit at home during local elections and allow anybody to be elected—and we all know that the percentage turn-out for local elections is very small—and then they appeal to Members of Parliament to do the councillors' job for them. Local people take responsibility for electing their Members of Parliament and they should take the same responsibility for electing members of their district and county councils.

Mr. Parry: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that road now. I feel very strongly about this issue and I led a deputation to the then Secretary of State last year. He listened to these people and we all watched a first-class film on the proposed inner ring road and the effect that it would have on people living there. I have asked that the present Parliamentary Secretary should meet those people again but he has refused. I seriously hope that he will change his mind and listen to their objections.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has looked at the siting of the ring road, but I beg both him and the Secretary of State to have a look, just as the last Minister of Transport did.

Mr. Steen: He liked it.

Mr. Parry: I do not think so. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). It is not often that we agree on political matters but he has been consistent in his opposition, both inside and outside the House, and I fully support him.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I rise to intervene briefly and emphasise that my remarks are in no way meant to wind up this debate. The County of Merseyside Bill is a private measure, sponsored in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) I do not know how many sponsors this Bill has had during its long passage or how many Ministers have intervened at various stages, but it is not appropriate that I should wind up the Bill as a whole. I merely give the Government view on the Liverpool inner ring road.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) has chosen the Third Reading debate to canvass his well-known views on this ring road and with some ingenuity he has commanded the Floor of the House of Commons for the best part of an hour about a totally Merseyside local government row. He raised this in an Adjournment debate on 10 July last year when he used much the same quotations and arguments. I will not rehearse them all again.
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). We have been debating a matter which should be debated by the elected representatives of the local authorities in Merseyside. It is preposterous to argue that every Member of Parliament who has a dispute with his county council or his district council—regardless of the political party that controls the local authorities—should breeze along to the House of Commons, and seek either to refute a Bill of this sort and reject it entirely, or to try to involve the Government in taking decisions in London which are best taken in Merseyside. The people whose opinions the hon. Member rejects are elected representatives from Merseyside. They are the highway authorities. The hon. Member uses emotive language in which to attack them. They have to answer to their electorate and to legality which is best exercised there.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not want the Minister to go into long and detailed arguments about the ring road. We have debated that matter on previous occasions. It is obvious that he has not changed his mind. I should like him to concentrate his mind on the schedule before us. Parliament is being asked to decide whether we wish the Bill to be placed on the statute book. That is a matter for hon. Members, not for the county council. People's homes and properties can be taken away from them under the powers contained in the Bill, without the right of a public inquiry. Is that a matter of which the Minister and his Government approve?

Mr. Clarke: That is certainly the case. The Bill bears on the 1966 Act, which gives the powers on which the council tend to rely. They have a 14-year-old power. I am an outsider on the matter of the ring road, as is the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I shall give him a similar reply if he talks about local roads in Rochdale, claiming that he wants a ministerial reply.
I do not regard myself as being in a position to decide on Merseyside local roads. I have been obliged to take an interest in the road, and I find that for 14 years people on Merseyside have talked themselves to a total standstill about a road on which no one seems able to take a decision. Parliamentary powers were given in 1966. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill was elected in May 1979, and he now wants to open 13 years of debate, and thus cause further delay.
As an outsider—I hesitate in the fraught atmosphere of a Merseyside debate to give advice to Merseyside MPs—one of the things that I discovered when looking at the inner ring road is that the inner area of Liverpool is blighted to a considerable extent with empty derelict land, much of which is deteriorating because of continued indecision. Because the hon. Gentleman is late in the field so far as the House is concerned—although he is not late in his opposition to the road—he wishes to extend the uncertainty either by asking Ministers to intervene or by blocking a Private Member's Bill, or by any other means by which he can overrule the decisions of the democratically elected Merseyside county council.
I intervene because the hon. Gentleman is entitled to a reply as a Member of the House. I underline the fact that this is a local authority responsibility. The hon. Gentleman has obliged me to take a much closer look at the road. My attention was drawn to the matter by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). His constituency is affected, so I have some sympathy with him, but the hon. Member for Edge Hill insists on representing the constituencies of other Liverpool Members which are outside his boundaries.
The hon. Member for Scotland Exchange has the most direct interest. He wishes me to look at the ring road. I have taken an interest. I cannot conceivably meet deputations on behalf of the Government, and take steps on a matter which is not the proper responsibility of the Government. I have made the same decisions as the Ministers responsible in the previous Labour Government. The scheme is highly commendable, and it is accepted expenditure for the purpose of transport supplementary grant. So long as the Merseyside county council continues to persevere with it, the time has come for a decision.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for being so courteous. It would be highly irresponsible for me, a Merseyside Member, to ignore the fact that my constituents will have to pay vast amounts for the road to be built. Some of my constituents' properties will be affected by the construction of the road. I speak legitimately on their behalf. It would be irresponsible of me not to be a guardian of the public purse. The scheme is to cost £40 million at a time when the Government are talking about public expenditure cuts.
We are talking about the use of powers that are 14 years old.

Mr. Ogden: That is not a long time in this place.

Mr. Alton: We are talking about a different scheme from the one conceived by the Liverpool city council in 1966, the year that the Liverpool Corporation Bill was introduced. We are about to witness a misuse of powers. We are talking about a different road, a different scheme and different properties. Nevertheless, the House is asked to allow the

Bill to pass on to the statute book so that people's businesses and homes may be taken away from them.

Mr. Clarke: We are studying the transportation programmes and plans of local authorities and deciding what is acceptable expenditure We are giving the appropriate grant for that expenditure. That is being done against a background of financial restraint. We are not against all expensive road schemes. To claim that financial constraints mean that all road schemes should be stopped would lead to absurdity and great hardship in some areas.
It is for Merseyside to make its bid. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Liverpool city council. Apparently he is able to command considerable attention in the local press and on radio and television in the Liverpool area. He should pursue his argument in the Liverpool area and not any longer in the House of Commons.
The Bill has had a long course in this place. I believe that the time has come for the House to make a decision on Third Reading. It is an odd suggestion that two years' work in the House should be rejected because the hon. Gentleman has decided yet again to advance his argument on the inner ring road. I understand that at some stage a petition was presented by the Liberal councillors on the Liverpool city council. All 41 of them petitioned against the inner ring road. They were entitled to do so. They petitioned against the Bill and the relevant powers. On 10 July 1978 the time came for the petition to be pursued and to be examined by the Committee. Unfortunately, not one of the 41 councillors appeared to pursue the petition. They were noticeable by their absence. They took no part in the proceedings at that stage.
It is unfortunate that on Third Reading—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cyril Smith: Disgraceful lies.

Mr. A. P. Costain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you hear the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told a lie? Is that parliamentary language?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I had heard anything of that sort, I should have asked the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Alton: I ask the Minister to reconsider his statement. I composed the letter and sent it myself. I received an acknowledgement. I know that many written representations were made. I personally delivered to another place the 41 signatures. Representations were made by my colleagues and myself and none of us was invited to attend the other place.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Answer that.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry if a procedural error was made. That may be the explanation. The 41 signatures were presented on the petition. However, the petition was not pursued. Not one of the signatories appeared to pursue it. If a procedural error was made, that was a

misfortune. However, that was the stage at which the matter should have been pursued. It is absurd to try to reject the entire Bill on Third Reading because of a dispute concerning the inner ring road.

I have discovered that there are strong feelings about the inner ring road in Liverpool. However, there are rather more substantial portions of the Bill on which Merseyside Members are anxious to reach a conclusion. The Government's views remain the same on the inner ring road. We consider it to be a local authority matter. We have accepted the expenditure for grant purposes. The scheme appears to us to have considerable merits. It is an issue that is not appropriate for the House or for the Government finally to determine. It is not a reason for rejecting the entire Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 6.

Division No. 191]
AYES
[9.30 pm


Ancram, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kimball, Marcus


Arnold, Tom
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Knox, David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lambie, David


Banks, Robert
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bell, Sir Ronald
Evans, John (Newton)
Lee, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Eyre, Reginald
Leighton, Ronald


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin
Macfarlane, Neil


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyil)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Bowden, Andrew
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marland, Paul


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Brinton, Tim
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Golding, John
Mather, Caro.


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Goodhart, Philip
Maxton, John


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Pedditch)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morton, George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Myles, David


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Cook, Robin F.
Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Haynes, Frank
Newton, Tony


Corrie, John
Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Henderson, Barry
Nolt, Rt Hon John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hicks, Robert
Ogden, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Palmer, Arthur


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Jessel, Toby
Pavitt, Laurie


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Porter, George


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Race, Reg




Rathbone, Tim
Spence, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Richardson, Jo
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Sproat, lain
Ward, John


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Stradllng Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Strang, Gavin
Wickenden, Keith


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Temple-Morris, peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret



Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearing, Nigel
Waddington, David
Mr. Malcolm Thornton and


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, John
Mr. Anthony Steen.




NOES


Beith, A. J.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Homewood, William



Howells, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Cyril Smith and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. David Alton.




Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (WATER POLLUTION)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community documents 6995/79 and 7735/79 concerned with draft EEC Directives on water pollution by aldrin, dieldrin and endrin and by mercury, and the Department of the Environment's supplementary explanatory memorandum; and supports the Government's intention to seek satisfactory quality objectives according to the purpose for which the water is to be used.

The Government welcome this debate tonight and are grateful to the Select Committee for recommending it. The Select Committee was correct in its conclusion. These two sets of proposals from the EEC raise questions of political importance which it is right and proper for the House to consider and I look forward to hearing the views and comments of hon. Members.
I congratulate the Select Committee on these two reports. They are a model of brevity, accurately summarising the main features of these proposals and the issues to be considered. I should also like to pay tribute to the excellent work done on these subjects by sub-committee G of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. Its authoritative report on the drins proposals is well known and respected both here and in Brussels.
Apart from the Select Committee's two reports, hon. Members should also have seen the supplementary memorandum we have just tabled. This describes two important developments in Brussels since the original drafts were published last summer.
Let me first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put these EEC proposals into context. They are not by any means the first water directives. The Community's environmental activity formally began in 1973 with the publication of the first environmental action programme. Directives on water quality were agreed to be a clear priority and the House will know that a number have now been agreed. We have debated those on groundwater, freshwater fish, drinking water and standards of measurement, to give the most recent examples.
The United Kingdom has played its responsible role as a member State in actively supporting and assisting the preparation of directives on water quality. But one thing has become very clear. Our circumstances in the United Kingdom and as a result our policies and practice are very different from those in Europe. The principal reason for the priority given to water legislation was European concern for transfrontier pollution. We can understand that concern in the United Kingdom and indeed sympathise with it, but we do not share it. It is not a United Kingdom problem.
As I have said, our circumstances are very different from those of other member States. We are an island, with abundant water supplies, and a large number of fast flowing rivers. Our water pollution control procedures are well established and are based upon United Kingdom circumstances and conditions. They are, inevitably, different from those used on the Continent of Europe. These vital differences in circumstances and as a result in policies and procedures are a constant theme in negotiations on EEC water quality directives and they recur in the latest sets of proposals that we are debating tonight.
In sketching out this important background, I do not seek to imply that we regret at all the tremendous Community effort spent in establishing a regime of water quality directives. We do not—and here I might stress the bipartisan nature of the United Kingdom position which I hope will be continued tonight. But the accommodation of the different approaches to controlling water pollution in Community legislation has not been easy, and the difficulties remain in the current negotiations.
Let me now come to the proposals on the drins and mercury. They result from a major parent directive passed in 1976, the negotiations for which were, I understand, more than usually bedevilled by the difficulties that I have mentioned. As the Select Committee has said, the important point about these present proposals is that they are the first offspring of that parent directive. I refer to EEC document 76/464, passed by the Council on 4 May 1976, dealing with
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community.


This provides a framework for measures to control water pollution caused by the discharge of harmful substances. These are grouped into a black list and a grey list on the basis of their polluting effects.
The parent directive does not in itself establish limits or standards for any of these dangerous substances. The idea always was that standards for the black list should be laid down in subsequent directives. The first two of these are before us now.
To take the drills first, these proposals are not in themselves of major significance. The drins should indeed be controlled, but they are not in wide use. In fact, the proposed directives will bear only on two member States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the EEC proposals would only affect discharges of dieldrin by our mothproofing industry, which is largely based in Yorkshire. Traces of drins can be found elsewhere, but these would not be covered by the present texts.
There is room for doubt as to whether such a limited proposal justifies a Community directive. In the early negotiations in Brussels we raised this question, but the Commission has been under pressure from a number of countries to make progress with proposals under the parent directive, and the drins obviously seemed a simple place to start.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the hon. Gentleman raised this question in Brussels, what was the reply from the Community? Some of us with experience of the Community are strongly with him and think that this sort of blanket approach in directives is sometimes daft.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, speaks common sense. With regard to this directive, I think that we behaved sensibly in that here was a minor matter and there was no way in which we could stop its progress. It seemed fair that we should accept it as being one of the first proposals. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished my speech, I am sure that he will understand how we shall tackle these other things in the future, which are much more major.
Mercury was less simple in prospect because it is a widely-used substance

which also occurs naturally. In the interests again of making an early impact on the problem of dangerous substances, the EEC Commission chose to concentrate upon the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry. It claimed this industry was a "principal source" of pollution caused by mercury discharges into water. As the Select Committee's ninth report has noted, the CBI rejects this charge. It argues that mercury discharges from this industry have not caused harmful pollution within the terms of the definition specified in the parent directive.
The United Kingdom Government have some sympathy for the industry's point of view. Companies such as ICI have spent considerable sums of money in recent years to reduce the amounts of mercury discharged to the waters concerned, which have in any case been carefully monitored by the relevant water authorities. The fact is, however, that in Community terms the chlor-alkali industry is the largest single discharger of mercury and was, therefore, the likeliest target for the legislators to pick off first.
Here is an immediate example of the difference in approach that I have mentioned. Controlling discharges of dangerous substances on the industry-by-industry basis proposed by the EEC Commission is not the United Kingdom approach. Our concern is with the quality of the water which may be affected by a number of different discharges and, in the case of mercury, by some natural levels. So we have proposed, as our supplementary memorandum makes clear, that for the United Kingdom system the eventual directives should apply generally and not just to the mothproofing industry, for the drins, or the chlor-alkali industry, for mercury. The House will agree that not only does this accord better with existing United Kingdom practice but it also makes for more comprehensive and effective environmental legislation. Instead of at least two mercury directives dealing with different industries and sources of discharge, the United Kingdom approach requires only one.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves that subject may I ask him a question, as he may wish to answer it from the Box? What will the Government do about the methyl-mercury problem in this country? Do they accept that it is a major issue?

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is correct. By leave of the House, and with permission, I hope to reply to him.
This brings me to a major issue in the negotiations on these proposals. It concerns what the Select Committee rightly calls "the parallel approach" embodied in the parent directive. A vital compromise was reached in that 1976 directive for which I would pay tribute to the efforts of the Ministers then concerned and especially the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) whom I see opposite. This was that member States could control water pollution by black list substances either by environment quality objectives—the United Kingdom system—or by limit values—the European system. In other words, we agreed to achieve the same ends by our different means. This was—and in the Government's view, remains—an appropriate and respectable solution to the problems posed for Community legislators by the differences in circumstance and practice between the United Kingdom and other member States.
This compromise enshrined in the "parallel approach" remains vital to United Kingdom interests. As the evidence considered by the Select Committee makes clear, our industry and water authorities strongly support the Government's preference for the EQO system. It is an effective policy for controlling water pollution. It is a policy soundly based in both scientific and economic terms. It is well established in this country. And the proof of its effectiveness lies in the generally high quality of our rivers, which set a standard to which many European countries would like to aspire.
It is therefore of crucial importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the parallel approach embodied in these offspring directives is a genuine one. As these drafts on drins and mercury are the first to be published, we must take particular care. Further directives covering other black list substances will follow and the precedents established in these first two directives will inevitably affect subsequent proposals.
So we must take a very hard look at these EEC proposals. What do we find? The Select Committee states in its ninth report that the evidence it received claims

a basic misunderstanding by the Commission of the implications of the parallel approach".

For both the drins and mercury proposals the Select Committee also refers to claims of "unrealistic quality objectives" and "a lack of correspondence" between the standards set for the two different methods of control.
These are serious criticisms, if true. The Government think they are. Let me give the House two examples to support our conclusions. First, let us consider the imbalance in the timescale's proposals for the alternative methods. For mercury, it is proposed that the quality objectives should apply in full from 1983; but the most stringent limit values are not to be achieved until 1989. For drins, the quality objective—our system—must be achieved by January 1982. The most stringent limit values need not be met until January 1986. If this is a parallel approach it seems a strange one.
A second example concerns the most important criticism we have of these texts. The quality objectives proposed do not accord either with the EQO system used in this country or with the compromise contained in the parent directive.
The vital feature of EQO philosophy and practice in this country is that objectives and standards set for different stretches of water vary according to the use of that water. To give a simple example—a section of a river where water is abstracted for drinking will have different quality requirements to meet from one used as a coarse fishery. This principle is already embodied in EEC water directives. We expected to see it in these proposals. But in the drins text, only one quality standard is proposed which all waters in the United Kingdom, irrespective of use, apparently have to meet. For mercury, different standards are allowed for marine and freshwater but, again, there is no distinction by use. The implication is clear: we are expected to change our system and practice in this country, to meet the demands of these directives.
The objections are obvious. First, this was not the compromise agreed in 1976 and embodied in the parent directive. Secondly, the United Kingdom has long been controlling water pollution by dangerous substances like the drins and mercury and doing so, using our EQO


system, effectively and economically. Thirdly, the standards proposed in these draft directives would impose additional costs on industry and water authorities—possibly quite substantial ones—which certainly have not been justified.
The Government's conclusion is that there must be changes in the present proposals. We are seeking these in the negotiations. My officials have made counterproposals at the working level for what we regard as realistic quality objectives by use, for controlling water pollution by these two substances. I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate tonight to say to all concerned that this is a fundamental principle for the United Kingdom, which must be embodied in these directives, and the ones to follow. I hope the House will support that statement and thus the motion before us tonight.

Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the Minister for his kindly reference to myself. When I was negotiating these matters in Brussels, it was a great comfort for me to be able to assure Ministers from other countries that I was speaking for the whole House. If this motion is carried tonight, as I hope it will be, the Minister has our authority, when he negotiates with our partners in the Nine, to say that he, too, negotiates for the whole House. I think that that is extremely important.
As the Minister has said, this debate is very important, first, because it deals with two list 1 substances; secondly, because it puts to the test for the first time the different, the parallel, approach, as we come to call it, of establishing emission standards which can be measured immediately upon a discharge into a water supply, as compared with our own procedures which have regard to the environmental quality objectives after the discharge has been made either into rivers or into estuaries, and because it raises the matter of the authority of Ministers within the EEC and the accountability of the Commission to Ministers who, in their turn, have to be accountable to their own sovereign Parliaments. This seems to me to be an issue of principle.
Like the Minister, I have had the benefit of advice from the National Water Council and from the Confederation of British Industry and, like him, I fully accept their advice now as I did when I had to carry out his responsibilities. On the question of drins and mercury, it is interesting to note that there is, as the Minister has said, a total lack of consistency, as far as the Commission is concerned, on the relative effects of these directives in different circumstances. We must take account of this. Certainly as far as I understand it, nowhere in the United Kingdom, in the case of either drins or mercury, is any manufacturer exceeding the safety limits, nor is there any danger from these substances as far as drinking water is concerned.
In one instance this directive imposes a more stringent standard for the effect of a substance when it enters the sea than it proposes for drinking water in this country, which seems an extraordinary situation for the Commission to find itself in. In so far as any of our manufacturers had been discharging these substances into our aquatic environment, I am glad to agree with the Minister that British industry has already taken effective steps to deal with it. I pay tribute to the ICI Mond division which has made an investment of many millions of pounds in dealing with discharges into the Mersey, in particular in the Blackpool Bay area.

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords] and the Residential Homes Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr Waddington.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (WATER POLLUTION)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Howell: It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to spend more time in dealing with the merits of controlling either drins or mercury. We all agree that these are dangerous substances that need to be controlled, although the danger in this country is extremely limited.
My attention was first drawn to the question of the parallel approach by my guardian angels in the Department of the Environment when I had ministerial responsibility and by representations from the Confederation of British Industry as long ago as 1975. The CBI wrote to my late colleague Anthony Crosland, who was Secretary of State at that time, and later made representations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.
The CBI's first letter referred to fixed emission standards and said that in 1975 that was the sole procedure on which the Commission relied. It was an untried and hypothetical system. It wasted resources, finance and material by requiring the installation and operation of artificial treatment plants in cases where it was not appropriate. It was also said that the procedure had no more relevance to the distortion of trading arrangements between member States than had other aspects of industrial production costs. I agree with those three points.
I would say one word about the question of the harmonisation of trade and competition. When we started out in 1975 we were in a minority and had to try to persuade our colleagues to agree with us. We were able to get a parallel approach only by saying that in no circumstances would we approve the directive unless a parallel approach was written into it. That attitude eventually gained general acceptance, and I hope that the Government will continue along those lines.
In those days I was constantly told that we must harmonise trading arrangements. I pointed out that the EEC was not trying to harmonise trading arrangements but trying to harmonise the facts of geography, and that is a very different matter. There are two seas in the Continent of Europe, the North Sea and the Mediterranean, which geographically behave differently. We used to explain to ministerial colleagues in the EEC that if titanium dioxide was put into the Mediterranean it accumulated and had a deleterious effect on the aquatic environment, whereas if it was put into the North Sea the action of the sea upon the titanium dioxide was such that immediately the problem was reduced.

Therefore, in the name of harmonisation, of trade, it was ludicrous to expect British manufacturers to accept such standards and considerable financial investment to deal with a non-problem as it affected the North Sea. I readily agree that the problem as it affected the Mediterranean Sea had to be dealt with.
I used to argue that if we were to start harmonising all the terms of trade, we should consider that geographically we are a bit out on a limb compared with the the rest of Europe. For example, our transportation costs are more considerable than those in other European countries. If this is what is meant by harmonisation and fair competition, the Community ought to consider how it can provide an input for British industry to allow it to trade on fair terms when one considers the transportation difference. That is the sort of argument we used to have and I have no doubt that the two Ministers who are present have to meet similar arguments today. However, we managed to obtain this parallel approach and this agreement. It was a hard-won victory, but at least we all came away thinking that it actually meant something.
That takes me on to my second point: do the directives faithfully carry out the intention of Ministers as agreed in 1975–1976? The directive does no such thing because it totally departs from that agreement—certainly the agreement for which I was responsible when I was negotiating on behalf of the Labour Government.

Mr. Dalyell: From his experience of negotiations, does my right hon. Friend think that it is fair to say that much of this was geared to the rather special problems of the Rhine and its tributaries as opposed to fast-flowing rivers? The analogy my right hon. Friend used as between the North Sea and the Mediterranean could be applied as between the Rhine and British rivers.

Mr. Howell: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that it necessarily applies to these two substances, but it is true of other substances that we considered. If a country is on the receiving end of the Rhine, as some of the member States are, one can have a lot of sympathy for it because it receives half the pollution of Europe as the river reaches the sea. One has considerable sympathy for such countries.


At any rate, I did when I used to attend the meetings.
As the Minister has rightly told us, we are for the first time establishing the precedents that will govern the dual system. Therefore, it is essential that the House should get it right. I can pick out about four or five discrepancies, particularly those that were drawn to my attention by the National Water Council, about the disparate effect between sea water and drinking water in one instance and fish life in another. As I understand it, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food monitors regularly—I hope the Minister can assure us on this—the fish landed here that has been caught in such waters, and nothing has been found to suggest that there is cause for concern.
The time limit is an absolute giveaway. I know that the Commission did not like this parallel approach and fought it tooth and nail, month after month. We had to keep returning to Brussels to fight this battle. That the Commission never really accepted the result achieved by Ministers is to be found in the differential time limits. I will not repeat them because the Minister has already given them to us.
If we adopt these emission standards so that pollution is measured at the moment it is discharged, we can have until 1989 to put our house in order. But if we adopt our system of environmental standards the time limit is 1983. That seems an absolutely monstrous diversion of approach that none of us should support for one moment. I am sad to make these remarks because I am a strong supporter of the European Community.
That brings me to the third point that I want to make. Those of us who support the European ideal cannot believe that it is being advanced by the sort of chicanery that is going on in Brussels. The Commission is undermining its own credibility and that of the EEC by reaching a decision with one set of Ministers and, after an election and another set

of Ministers, going back to square one and totally disregarding the previous decision. It is not credible.
The National Water Council wrote to me recently and asked whether it was appropriate for decisions of this sort to be made by the Commission behind closed doors and without adequate consultation or accountability. It raises a matter of considerable principle. I do not doubt that the Ministers knew what they were doing in 1976; they knew how the agreement would be put into effect and how it would be carried along by Ministers representing other countries. Therefore, how can the Commission totally depart from that agreement?
This is a matter of principle and I hope that our Ministers will follow it up within the EEC. It is a weakness of the Common Market system that the Commission can initiate directives and legislation of this sort but that the system of rotating chairmanship means that no chairman presides for a sufficient period. During my period in office, we held the chairmanship for a while and we were beginning to get to grips with the matter when the chairmanship passed to another nation. The matter raises important constitutional questions. The behaviour of the Commission causes questions to be asked at the Dispatch Box tonight.
We recognise the dangers of list 1 substances. We also recognise the facts of geography. This country more than any other must insist that the tests applied to these substances are related to the problems of British industry and the geography of the British Isles. That is of vital importance.
I take it from the Minister's remarks that he has given the assurance that the Government intend to stand firm and that they will use the veto if necessary—as we were prepared to use it. I fully support that stand on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I assure the Minister that when he fights the battle in Brussels he will speak for the whole House.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The House has benefited from two excellent presentations of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has called a bipartisan case on these directives.
We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for giving the immediate historical background to the documents. Yet again, that shows that the timetable of these documents both in Brussels and here—because of the slippage in our scrutiny procedure timetable and the local timetable of the House of Commons—has created a muddle on these papers. The House has benefited directly from the clear explanations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Member for Small Heath.
We were also extremely impressed by the reiteration of the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the fundamentals of the European ideal. That is always the greater background to these documents. That point must be reiterated quite frequently these days as the atmosphere has become considerably soured in the United Kingdom as regards membership of the Community. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. Such an utterance demands a considerable amount of courage in the Labour Party. It is rare to hear that type of remark. It lent respectability to his later words concerning his anxieties and worries about the documents.
I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning the Government's misgivings about certain aspects of the directives. I shall intervene only briefly in order to add one or two slightly general but relevant points. The question of scrutiny procedure must be regularly and monotonously raised. These documents were available in their revised form last November. A debate could have been held at an earlier date. Perhaps I have misunderstood the timing of various meetings in Brussels, but it is a pity that we have been unable to consider the documents before mid-February. An earlier debate would have given the Government the authority to state that there are objections and misgivings about various aspects.
I particularly agree about the need for differential treatment. Pollution in the

middle of Western Europe is severe and intense. It is very different from the pollution that we encounter. We have had higher standards of control, although that may change in the future as the technology of other member States improves as regards water pollution control.
I wish to express an anxiety that has already been implied regarding the procedures on framework directives. These documents do not emanate directly from a specific article in the treaty. They emanate from a Council decision to issue a directive. That decision was not taken under the action programme for the environment that was drawn up by the Commission four years ago. It was a separate decision concerning water pollution. The advantage of a framework directive is that the Commission can construct fairly wide terms, conditions and clauses in a particular document. That will allow a reasonably pragmatic type of harmonisation in difficult technical circumstances. That applies particularly in circumstances where one does not want rigid or centralised criteria being applied to member States that have different backgrounds and technologies.
However, it also gives the Commission too much temptation—as we have already seen—to deal elaborately with many areas. Perhaps it should not deal with those areas at all. However, that is a major question and constitutional changes might be considered in future. If the Commission deals with those issues, it should do so in the most limited and brief way. It should be done by domestic legislation and it should allow member States to get on with their work.
Perhaps the Minister will correct me, but I think that we can deal with these problems under our domestic legislation. Like the right hon. Member for Small Heath, I share an enthusiasm for the original ideas and fundamental arguments behind our membership of the Community. But we should advise the Commission not to attempt to do everything. It should resist that temptation. The Commission has a great amount of discretionary authority. It can choose whether to get involved in an issue. However, if that issue does not emanate from a specific written clause in the treaty or any of the addtions to the treaty, the Commission should resist the temptation.
All too often the temptation is for highly paid Commission officials, with their discretionary authority, and with the enthusiasm automatically generated by the framework directive procedure, particularly in environmental matters, to sit down and draw up an elaborate document. They will then more or less harry the Council of, for instance, water Ministers until they produce to the Commission's satisfaction an agreed document that Ministers from different countries may object to or worry about later, perhaps when it is too late—I believe that there have also been objections from other member States.
The Community is beset with severe problems, mainly economic and social. It would be better if the Commission was more selective in the areas in which it need not be too ambitious or elaborate.
There is a third important reason, which the House should remember and constantly recall, as should other institutions in the Community. The members of the Scrutiny Committee are worried about the accumulation of items for debate. I believe that the Chairman would agree. In the past week or two the situation has been eased marginally by some items being set down for debate. The delay until that point was all too uncomfortable for the Committee and the House.
In Strasbourg, which may now be the single seat of the European Parliament, there is also a most disconcerting and overwhelming accumulation of separate items coming from the Commission, through the Council of Ministers, to the Parliament for consultation and opinion and a more powerful form of decision making in respect of certain financial documents now being re-presented for discussion. The list of items piling up is enormous. I believe that most representatives of member States will admit that the European Parliament is incapable of dealing with those documents without changing internal procedures. That is a terrible situation for that body unwittingly to find itself in for reasons beyond its control.
That is a wider perspective, but it also applies to these documents and the original thoughts in the Commission that produced them. There is value in what is laid down in the directives. It can be

worked on and improved. However, it is a further example of where the Commission could possibly be more usefully employed on another matter. I believe that that was the prevailing inference in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Member for Small Heath.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I am an unreconstructed and unapologetic pro-Marketeer. Having said that, I should like to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). He said that it was a pity that all these items were piling up in the Parliament in Strasbourg. Some of us think that that is the fault of that Parliament. From the accounts of the debates in the press, it appears that that Parliament is spending an inordinate amount of time on subjects that should not be its first concern.
The European Parliament should not take a view on everything from Afghanistan to Central America. One can see how it is tempted to become involved in many issues. We all have individual opinions. However, the amount of time spent in Strasbourg dealing with subjects which are of global significance but which, nevertheless, remain the business of national Parliaments is Strasbourg's own fault. That Parliament must take responsibility for gumming up and snarling up matters that it should be concerned with.
I strongly support my right hon. Friend's view that, as with previous directives that we have discussed, part of the problem is musical chairs. As a former member of that Parliament's budget committee, I recall that we had endlessly to nag Ministers who came before us on whether it was sensible to have a six-month period. Count Lambsdorff was extremely scathing about the system.
It is not the fault of the Commission but the responsibility of national Governments. For the one hundred and nineteenth time I ask the British Government, for goodness sake, to accept that, when it comes to these relatively technical Ministries, the game of musical chairs with chairmen is a ludicrous procedure. It takes three or four months to settle in.


And what is he doing? Like every other Minister, he is handing over to the next occupant and the next incumbent. That is bad enough with nine members of the Community. If the Community is to be enlarged to 12 or 13 members, Community institutions must be examined.
We now come to the general pursuit of the directives. It is legitimate to ask Ministers to pass on to the Lord Privy Seal or to the Prime Minister, or whoever handles such matters, the fact that certain questions should be asked about the various candidates for the presidency of the Commission. Do the Presidents of the Commission believe that it is the business of the Community to be regurgitating all sorts of directives? I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East on that point. My experience is that two-thirds of the higher civil servants in the Berlaymont work extremely hard, and they are overworked. Another six, or possibly more, work averagely hard. There are comparatively few who have less to do. A small number are looking around for jobs that the Community might be doing, and it is they who inflict the number of superfluous directives upon us. This directive is perhaps one.

Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be a good idea to consider that when a new President takes over he should present a sort of Queen's Speech programme, outlining measures that he would ask the Commission to submit over that period? In that way there would be greater control.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree. But I think that the various candidates Gaston Thorn, Commissioner Gundelach or whoever—should be asked at an early stage, before the British Government come to any decision, what is their philosophy on directives. What kind of directives should be issued? The number of directives issued is ridiculous.
The Minister has said that it is absurd to cater for the Mediterranean and the North Sea in the same directive, and for fast-flowing rivers such as the Spey and slow-moving rivers such as the Rhine and the Po. The conditions are completely different. What, therefore, is the purpose of a blanket directive?
There is a good deal of reference in documents to ground water. I gather that

the ground water conditions are wholly different in the United Kingdom from those in Italy and Sicily. What is right for Sicily and southern Italy and parts of France in relation to ground water is completely inappropriate for my area or the area represented by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve).

Mr. Tom Ellis: My hon. Friend talks about the absurdity of the same sort of legislation covering all types of river, whether fast flowing or slow flowing. Does he agree that our indigenous legislation suffers from precisely that? The standards for the fast-flowing Dee in my constituency are the same as those for the slow-flowing lower reaches of the Thames.

Mr. Dalyell: There is something in that.
What causes these directives? It is the sort of television programme such as that about Minamata Bay. This is a dramatic affair that has gone completely wrong. Now everyone says that a Minamata Bay must be stopped in Europe. There are only three or four places in Europe where this kind of situation has arisen. It is an instant reaction—I will not say panic reaction—to dramatic events somewhere in the world to draw blanket conclusions. These conclusions can often be exceedingly expensive.
In his opening speech, the Minister referred to the incurring of quite substantial costs. If we are to change the whole criteria of distinction by use, we have to face substantial costs. I wonder what figures the Government have in mind. One's guess is that enormous sums are involved if anything meaningful is to be done.
A raging row is taking place about the saving of small sums of money by closing down the effluent plant at Coldstream. I expect that the effluent plant at Coldstream is written on the heart of the Under-Secretary responsible for health matters in Scotland. This fairly new plant is to be closed down for the sake of some tens of thousands of pounds. According to argument, the Tweed will be polluted or will come near to being polluted.
The contrast between the trivial sums that may be saved by risking—I put it no higher—putting sewage into the Tweed


and the enormous sums that would be involved in outlay if this kind of directive came into operation should be argued in Brussels.

Mr. Michael Crylls: I should like to pursue the reference by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the Minamata Bay drama and horror in Japan. As a result of that case, there was a panic about mercury in many parts of the world. I recall reading a learned paper in Canada. Samples of sea water were taken from around the Canadian shore to discover the mercury level. The level of mercury was compared with that revealed by tests on prehistoric bones in Canadian museums. It was a surprise, considering the level of industry in Canada, to discover that the level of mercury in the prehistoric bones was exactly that found in the sea.
The hon. Member for West Lothian is right to draw the attention of the House to the ease with which panic might occur. That is not to say, of course, that action should not be taken to prevent a similar horror occurring again.
I wish to support the approach that the Government—like the previous Government—have taken. It is a sensible and distinctive approach. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) remarked, some people in Brussels might have a geography lesson. The geography of Britain is distinguished from the rest of Europe. We are surrounded, for most of the year, by raging seas.
The EEC approach is, perhaps, not so much a sledgehammer to crack a nut but the wrong tool for the job. I was struck that the right hon. Gentleman had been heartened, encouraged and reinforced by the bipartisan approach in the House of Commons over this practical matter. I am sure that it is helpful to the present Ministers, when they go to Brussels, to be able to speak with one voice. We cannot too often point out that our seas and our rivers are different from those of Europe. Our geography is different. It is, therefore, sensible to look at the matter in a different way.
One has only to gaze at the sluggish, dirty and polluted Rhine and compare

it with the sea outside the city of Newcastle. A lot of effluent can be put in the sea and it will be washed away in a short time. That could not happen in the Rhine.
There is a danger that the directive applies only to a small sector of British industry. If we are not careful and firm as a Government and House it may prove to be the thin edge of the wedge. There may be other silly directives that could damage British interests. It cannot be said too often that the environmental quality directive is environmentally sound and, above all, a cost-effective approach, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Lothian. It is most important. It is pragmatic rather than theoretical.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, it is sometimes apparent that those in Brussels run around thinking about theories rather than practices. Parliaments and assemblies of elected representatives should consider the practical approach, in terms of how it would effect our constituents, their jobs, and the manner in which they work. It is not sensible to follow the EEC on this matter.
The hon. Member for West Lothian was right to say that it will be a crazy time. We should say loud and clear that to impose extra and unnecessary costs on British industry at a time when we are finding it difficult to compete would be the wrong approach. Britain is in a difficult geographical position. We have to send our goods overseas to European markets. It would be intolerable to be forced to accept extra capital and revenue costs in industry at this time of all times.
We should consider each effluent discharge in the light of local circumstances and of the river into which the effluent will be discharged—I quoted earlier the case of the Rhine and the waters outside Newcastle—and decide what sort of effluent can be discharged into those rivers or waters.
We should remind our European friends that in Britain extensive use is made of scientific and technical knowledge, and the financial implications are carefully considered. Surely that is a better and more flexible approach than having a set limit, as has been proposed in Europe. The consultations that take place between the water authorities and


the industries as to what effluent should be allowed into a river or into part of the British seas form a more sensible and flexible approach.
I arrived a few minutes late and did not hear the first part of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's speech. I do not think that he mentioned the European Parliament. The directive is to be sent to it, and I hope that hon. Members will influence those whom they know in the European Parliament to add a sensible and practical approach to the directive. The European Parliament could return the directive to Brussels and give it a flea in its ear, and say that it is not good enough for Britain. I hope that our European colleagues will take an active interest in the matter.
I commend my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's speech, and the strength of the Government's stand. I am pleased that it is a bipartisan approach. A sensible and pragmatic approach from Britain should be the one that wins the day for British interests. I am an enthusiast for Europe—like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—and because of that I do not like seeing the EEC fall fiat on its face by putting forward a rather silly and inflexible directive.
I support the Government enthusiastically on the matter. I hope that it will be helpful to them, when they return to Brussels for further negotiations, to know that they have the House behind them. That knowledge will strengthen them in their resolve to pursue a practical and sensible approach to this potentially damaging problem.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I shall not seek substantially to alter or to disagree with the contributions that have been made. However, I am rather concerned about what may be described as a euphoric celebration of British practicality and common sense. I shall express a brief note of caution. We are constantly saying how wise and sensible we are and how silly are the bureaucrats on the Continent. We claim that there is a great difference between us and them.
I accept that there are differences know that our waters flow faster—that is something to do with gravity, or possibly the phases of the moon. Over the past 20 years there has been considerable controversy in my area about the discharge of raw effluent into the seas around North Wales. Even by British standards, that is fairly stormy water. The Irish Sea is quite stormy. We have periodically had to alter our arrangements. We are being slightly overenthusiastic in our praise for the British method.
We have the parallel arrangement, and I welcome it. We are different. The Mediterranean is a closed sea and the North Sea is not. We can get financial benefits from it. I am the last person to decry ally financial or commercial benefits that may accrue to British industry from our good fortune. It is only right that we should derive that benefit. However, we should consider the principles that are involved even if the practical politics behind the principles have not emerged clearly before us.

Mr. Denis Howell: When I was negotiating these matters in Brussels I was always struck by how far advanced we are in Britain in environmental legislation and practice compared with our European partners. That applies especially to the cleaning of our rivers. We have done so spectacularly well that in a misguided moment I once offered to catch a salmon from the Terrace of the House by 1980. I am glad that no one has called on me to do it. We have made spectacular progress with clean air legislation. The same applies to noise pollution. Our partners are far behind us in general environmental legislation. I think that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will accept that in this respect we have something to teach our European partners.

Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me and the House of how far ahead we are. I am pleased to acknowledge that fact. I am anxious that we remain equally far ahead over the years to come and that we do not rest on our laurels. We should not allow those who are a long way behind to catch us up. That would be a great mistake. As I take that point of view, it is possible that I am more critical than my right hon. Friend.
If we leave aside commerce and deal merely with what is called bio-accumulable pollution—that is a form of pollution different from organic pollution whereby an effluent that is toxic can over a period become increasingly more of an irritant and more strongly present in whatever body, whether a mollusc or a fish—it is surely better to limit the toxic content of the effluent to a certain level than to wait to see what happens when an effluent is affecting the whole environment in a large stretch of water. It seems that the Community approach is the right one in those circumstances.
I accept that often in politics what is right in theory and principle is not necessarily the best practical political course to take. I am happy that my right hon. Friend managed to arrive at the parallel approach. We must use it to our advantage as much as we can in future. At the same time, we must never forget that a poison such as mercury is cumulative in its effect. It may be that there are bones in Canada that go back to prehistoric times that have the same amount of mercury in them as bones in a river in Britain. However, in a highly industrialised country that has industries that consistently discharge into rivers toxic effluents that are bio-accumulable, the rivers will become polluted over a period. My right hon. Friend has admitted that he cannot catch a salmon from the terrace of the House of Commons. That is a fact and from that fact alone it seems that, no matter how far ahead we are of our friends on the Continent, we should not be complacent.
It has been said that the actions of the Commission are undermining the credibility of the Community. We do of course have enthusiastic bureaucrats just as we have enthusiastic politicians but it seems to me to be far-fetched to suggest that the Commission can use the 1976 framework directive for some malevolent and perverse purpose. am not a lawyer and I am not an authority on the 1976 framework directive, but a directive is a directive and one assumes that it has to be applied strictly in a legalistic sense to achieve its objectives, no more no less.
If the Commission is getting away with something it should not be allowed to do so. It is not necessarily a question of the Commission doing something behind closed doors. I am one of the first to criticise the legislative processes of the

Community and I have said all along that the system in the Community for passing legislation produces legislation by ministerial fiat.
That is one of the reasons I have been so anxious to see the European Parliament develop in authority and influence. That is the one institution that can introduce democratic accountability into the legislative process in the Community. We cannot do it here. If we were to attempt to do it, eight other legislatures would have to try as well. The obvious place to do it is in the European Parliament. We should be bending our energies here to devising changes in the Community constitution so that the European Parliament really does increasingly gain in power and influence.
The point made about the vast volume of legislation facing the European Parliament is valid. The same would apply to our Parliament if we were to scrutinise each and every piece of legislation passed here. I do not think that in principle there is anything much wrong with the present position. In relation to much of the technical work we are discussing the place to introduce democratic scrutiny is the European Parliament.

Mr. Fox: By leave of the House I shall quickly try to answer a few of the points that have been made.
It has been a useful debate and I assure the House that I have taken note of the various points made by hon. Members. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). His clear recollection of the agreement that he made as a Minister in 1975 on the parent directive certainly accords with the position of the Government. I assure him that we welcome what he has said, that we can certainly continue to negotiate for the whole House and that we have every intention of standing firm on the matters on which we all so obviously agree.
I also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regularly monitors the water he talked about. I am told that in Liverpool Bay there are fish with the highest content of mercury, Even so, there is no danger to anyone. But, though we accept that position, we are looking to improve it.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether metal mercury was a big problem. The answer is that it is no real problem in the United Kingdom in so far as discharges are concerned. My information is that that is of no consequence. The danger, of course, is from mercury found in fish, which is probably what the hon. Gentleman is thinking about. That is why the United Kingdom is proposing standards that are adequate to protect the health of people who eat fish in considerable quantities.
The hon. Gentleman is probably being misled with regard to groundwater. That was mentioned in the parent directive, but the two directives that we are discussing tonight are not concerned with that subject, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. That is a separate and agreed directive, and tonight would not be the occasion to go into that any further.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had to remind the House on 119 occasions that many of these directives are too technical for words. I take note of many of the sensible things that he has said. It is hard to believe that a United Kingdom representative has been the president of an important committee for six months, but I had better be careful about what I say in that respect. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and we are very mindful of the financial implications of all these directives. It is true to say that this consideration is very high on our list when we look at any of them.
That brings me to my hon. Friend and Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).

Mr. Dalyell: It is not just a question of having a president for six months, because as we all know, Minsters may change. However, in Europe it is much more serious than that, because not only are there revolving Ministers, there are also revolving groups of civil servants around those Ministers. There is not the permanent Civil Service which makes things tolerable in a nation State.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is right. We had an instance tonight whereby because of our system of continuity, the civil servants dealing with the matter have been able to keep a tight control of it,

even though there has been a change of Government. It was suggested that there were instances of chicanery. That may be too strong a word, but we have the continuity to ensure that when negotiations start there are people to follow them through to the end. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
We well understand the close involvement in Europe of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, and his service in the European Parliament as well as on the Scrutiny Committee. He suggested that the Commission should not try to do everything, which would seem to be a fair summary. Despite what he has said, negotiations at this stage are only in draft form. That is why tonight's debate is so important. My hon. Friend asked whether domestic legislation already in existence would deal with certain matters. The answer is "Yes", and I can assure him that nothing extra will be needed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) for his support. He was right to point out that in these matters the extra costs on industry at present represent a most important factor which the Government will not lose sight of. I reassure him also that these directives are only in draft form. It is right that tonight we should make our views known as forcibly as possible.
To the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East—

Mr. Tom Ellis: Wrexham.

Mr. Fox: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I apologise. My copy of "Dod's" is obviously out of date. I was about to talk about effluent discharges from North Wales to the sea. It would be difficult to see that coming from north-east Derbyshire. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). We are not complacent about the matter. However, although we may not yet be perfect, the point is that we think that our approach is the most pragmatic and cost-effective way of achieving the improvements that we all seek.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked specifically about any estimate of costs. That may be a difficult question, but all these things ought to have some kind of a rough price tag. No one in his right mind would try to tie down a Government Minister to an exact sum, because that would be absurd


But we ought to have some vague idea of the sums involved.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that I have no figures that I can give to him. However, if he will bear with me I shall write to him at the earliest possible opportunity.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members will be pleased to notice that alongside me for most of the debate has been my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, who is more involved than I am, in that he attends the Commission regularly. That fact that he has been present to listen to most of the debate shows that we consider this to be a most important matter. I ask the House to support me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community documents 6995/79 and 7735/79 concerned with draft EEC Directives on water pollution by aldrin, dieldrin and endrin and by mercury, and the Department of the Environment's supplementary explanatory memorandum; and supports the Government's intention to seek satisfactory quality objectives according to the purpose for which the water is to be used.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Consolidation Bill which consolidates a number of enactments relating to the reserve and auxiliary forces, and lieutenancies, and which repeals certain obsolete enactments relating to these matters going back to a statute of 1662.
No fewer than 29 Acts will be removed from the statute book if we put this one on to it.
The Law Commission made a recommendation proposing a minor change in the law to facilitate the consolidation. This relates to the application of the measures consolidated to the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man authorities have been consulted and are in agreement with the recommendation which has been incorporated in the Bill.
There is one matter of detail to which I would draw the attention of the House, and that relates to clause 144 of the Bill. As a result of an oversight, the penalty provisions in this clause do not take into account the statutory maximum fine that may be imposed in England and Wales under section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the corresponding Scottish provision.
It is my intention to move at Committee stage an amendment to rectify that oversight.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. In its fifth report to both Houses dated 28 November 1979 the Committee reported that it was of the opinion that, apart from those parts of the Bill which are the subject of a Law Commission recommendation—that is the one relating to the Isle of Man—the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. It was satisfied that the recommendation is for the purposes of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and that the amendments which the Bill proposes to make to the existing law give effect to that recommendation. The Committee further recommended that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having read the speech made in the other place by Lord Wigg, some of us think that it is relevant to put forward a quotation that my noble Friend took from Captain Waterhouse, who said:
The fact remains that when this crisis came we had no plan, no ships, no aeroplanes and no men available in sufficient quantities to hit quickly.
This is not the time for a long debate on the merits or otherwise of the reserves. However, I wanted to put on record that some of us rather take the view of Lord Wigg.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Cope.]

Committee tomorrow.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

11 pm

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 11, page 9, line 11, after 'effect', insert 'subject'.
Members of the Committee will have observed that in line 11 of the clause the word "subject" has been omitted. The purpose of the amendment is to restore it, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) In section 128(1) of that Act (sexual intercourse with patients) for the words "Part III of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Residential Homes Act 1980".'.

Again, the Committee no doubt will have noted the point here. It is a consequential amendment.
Section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 makes it an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mentally disordered patient and who is in his guardianship or otherwise in his custody or care as a resident in a residential home for mentally disordered

persons within the meaning of part III of the 1959 Act.
The provisions of part III concerning residential homes are consolidated in this Bill. The reference to part III is therefore inappropriate, hence the consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in line 16, leave out from 'etc.)' to "Section' in line 18 and insert
'for paragraph 31 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
31'.

This is another amendment that arises consequentially upon the enactment of this Bill. Part II of schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1966 lists various statutory provisions that, under section 35 of the Act, may be amended by ministerial order. They include
31. Section 37(2) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (including subsection (2) as applied by section 19 of the Mental Health Act 1959).
These provisions will be so well known to the Committee that I need add only a very little. However, I should say that originally the present Bill was not intended to consolidate section 19 of the 1959 Act, and the reference to that Act was retained in paragraph 3 of schedule 1. Now the Bill consolidates section 19, as right hon. and hon. Members will have seen from the table of derivations, so the reference to section 19 is deleted from the 1966 Act by the device of replacing the whole of paragraph 31 in the 1968 Act by the reference to the appropriate clause of the Bill, which is clause 2(2).

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

DAY NURSERIES (BLACKBURN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Jack Straw: I now realise that one of the many benefits of being successful in the ballot for Adjournment debates is to be a witness of such a fascinating and scintillating debate as the one that preceded this debate.
There are six day nurseries in the borough of Black burn, five within the town itself providing places for approximately 225 children and one in Darwen that caters for another 50 children. Last month, as part of its programme of cuts, the county council's social services committee had before it a proposal to close one of the Blackburn day nurseries, Holden House, which caters for 35 children, and two other nurseries in the county, one in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), whom I am pleased to see here tonight, and one in Colne. The aim was to save £51,000 in 1980–81 and £154,000 in subsequent years.
The closures were partly justified by the county council on the ground that the level of provision in the areas served by these day nurseries was in excess of 20 places per thousand children under 5. In 1978 a circular was issued by the Departments of Health and Social Security and of Education and Science to local authorities about the provision of facilities for day care facilities for children under 5. Although that circular was issued under the previous Government, the Under-Secretary of State told me earlier this month in a written answer that he fully endorsed the contents of the circular and its predecessor issued in 1976.
The 1978 circular said that priority for places in day nurseries should be given to those in special need, including children of working lone parents, children with a mental or physical handicap or whose home environment is so impoverished or so strained that they need day care and those whose parents are, through illness or handicap, unable to look after them during the day. Those guidelines have been followed nationally, and also locally in Blackburn and in the Holden House day nursery, since all the parents having

children at that day nursery fall within those priority categories.
So it was with the gravest concern and apprehension that the threatened closure of the day nursery was greeted in my constituency. It was also greeted by some astonishment, because even the Lancashire county council, though not known for its charity, had never been expected to consider such a callous and uncaring act as this.
The result was that the Blackburn One-Parent Families Association, ably led by Mrs. Doreen MacDonald, quickly organised a campaign of opposition to these cuts and, with opposition from Accrington and Colne as well, the social services committee agreed at its January meeting to defer its decision until 18 March.
I met a large group of the parents concerned on 25 January. Since then the campaign organisers have been able to collect 2,000 signatures on a petition calling for the day nursery to be kept open. By a coincidence that is so extraordinary that it is no coincidence at all, the chairman of the social services committee, Dr. David Murray, announced earlier today that in the light of further consideration of the issue and because of the pressure that has been applied, he would now be recommending to the social services committee when it meets on 18 March that, after all, the Holden House day nursery and the other two in Accrington and Colne should not now be closed.
That is a great victory for all those who have been associated with the campaign to keep these three nurseries open. But while the news of the Holden House reprieve is of course welcome, the timing and the content of the chairman's announcement says very little for the manner in which the committee first proposed this closure—a proposal which can best be described as cavalier and unthinking. The announcement does nothing to compensate parents and staff for the anxiety which this threat of closure caused to them. If the county council had bothered to study fully the important service provided by Holden House it would never have proposed closure in the first place. Nor would it have done so if it had shown any serious understanding of the needs of some of the more deprived children in an inner urban area such as Blackburn.
Closure would have had a desperate effect on many of the families involved. It would have forced some of the parents to leave work and go on to supplementary benefit and would have placed some of the children at risk. Further, there would have been far lower savings to the public than the county council suggested, because any of the gross savings to Lancashire would have been offset by an increase in supplementary benefit payments to those parents who had to stop working.
One other lesson that we have learnt from this unhappy saga is just how insensitive to local needs and unwieldy are the remote county authorities—such as Lancashire county council—that now run social services. We have seen how Blackburn and Accrington, the urban heartland of Lancashire, have had to fight all the way against the complacent deadweight of the overwhelmingly Conservative Fylde that now dominates the politics of the county council and how loud one has to shout to drive home even the clearest points.
The facts should have been plain to the county council from the beginning. Of the 35 children in the day nursery over 80 per cent. come from one-parent families. All the remaining children were admitted on proof of the most serious social need, including the serious illness of parents or poor or unstable home conditions.
When I met the parents concerned at the end of last month, I asked a group of 11 of them what would happen to them if the day nursery closed. Some said that they would try to make alternative arrangements by way of child minders but all were pessimistic about the chances of finding a decent child minder and very apprenhensive about whether they could meet the cost.
Of the 10 parents who were out during the day—seven at work and three studying—six said that they thought that they would have to give up their work or studies altogether were the day nursery to close and go on supplementary benefit. Three of the parents feared for the future of their children because those children had entered the day nursery precisely as a result of behavioural problems or family and home difficulties.
The fact that all the children were and are in serious social need also shows how

absurd and misplaced it was for the county council to rely on crude references to national guidelines about places per head of the population to justify the closure of this day nursery in what is unquestionably the borough with greatest social need in the whole county of Lancashire.
When the guideline figure was put into the Department of Health and Social Security circular 35/72 in 1972 it was made clear that it was a national guideline and was not intended to be used in narrow local circumstances such as those in Blackburn. The circular stated:
even when that figure is achieved nationally it is likely that need will remain for greatly increased use of full and part-time day care.
It is true that Blackburn's provision of day nursery places is well above the guidelines; but so is need in the area. It is well above both national and county average. That is shown clearly by figures from "Community Indicators" published by the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy. On almost every indicator Blackburn emerges as worse than Lancashire as a whole and also significantly worse than English counties. There are more single-parent families, more large families, more people from the New Commonwealth, more unskilled workers and, perhaps most significant of all, a much higher proportion of women at work with children under 5 than in Lancashire as a whole and in the country as a whole.
It was figures such as these and others relating to housing conditions that led the previous Government to designate Blackburn as the only inner urban area within the county of Lancashire, a designation that the present Government have not disturbed. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will not make too much of the present level of provision because in comparison with need it is not over-generous.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington I do not accept the economic policies of this Government. Even if I did, the county council has no need to contemplate cuts of this nature. The social services committee in Lancashire is already well within the targets set by the county council.
The meanness of the proposal can be well illustrated by looking at the figures involved. Closure would have meant a


saving next year of £50,000 in respect of the three day nurseries or one-fiftieth of 1p on the county rates. Each family in Lancashire would have saved the princely sum of 9p per year. Against the savings to the county council have to be set the cost to the DHSS of parents who would have ben forced to give up their jobs and go on to supplementary benefit. If only 15 of the 35 parents at Holden House had been so forced on to supplementary benefit—that is in my view an under-estimate—the cost in supplementary benefit, and tax and national insurance forgone would have been over £30,000. That is more than the total saving from the closure of the day nurseries would have been in the first year—and would result in a saving of only £20,000 in subsequent years.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will indicate in his reply whether he has asked local authorities to take such wider calculations into account in seeking to make economies. Why, given the vital importance of these services, have local authorities not been given more effective advice to protect these nurseries? I should like to know the advice that has been given to the authorities when they have been asked to make cuts in such services.
It is a terrible indictment of the Government's social priorities that the poorest and most vulnerable groups such as those using day nurseries have been put at risk by a doctrinaire economic policy which, even by its own standards, is bound to fail and which seems to provide nothing but misery, hardship and anxiety to the wage earners in my constituency.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on managing to acquire this Adjournment debate at such a singularly convenient time. I do not believe that the convenient time was a complete coincidence. It may well be that those who came to this happy conclusion on the subject matter of the debate were content to regard it as such. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on this speech and the fight that he has put up generally to keep the nurseries going.
It is inconceivable that the county

council could ever have contemplated closing the nurseries. Indeed, it would have been a disaster if it had succeeded in closing the Manchester Road nursery in my constituency. Of the 34 to 42 children normally at that nursery, only three come from two-parent families. The result of the closure would have been that the weakest and most vulnerable parents would have been forced either to give tip work and live on social security —that seems to be against the philosophy of this Government—or to try to find alternative places for their children. They would not have succeeded in doing so without great cost and inconvenience. It has been estimated that the nearest nursery would have added about two hours' travelling time for those unfortunate ladies plus the burden of three times more expensive bus fares.
My hon. Friend has outlined the folly and foolishness of the project, and I need not underline that. However, I should like to praise the Hyndbum Nursery Action Group for the fight that it has put up. It obtained about 4,000 signatures in one week—an indication of the hostility and resentment caused by the proposal throughout my constituency. A campaign cannot exist without publicity. I should also like to praise—as I am sure my hon. Friend would—the local press, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph and the Accrington Observer, for the help that they have given by highlighting an action that could have caused great disaster to many throughout north-east Lancashire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for raising the subject of day care for young children. The subject is of particular interest to me. Some three years ago, I raised an Adjournment debate on the broader subject of education for the under-fives. That is the definitive speech on the subject. It was made on 14 January 1977 and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman has provided a welcome opportunity to outline briefly the Government's policy and to dispel the delusions voiced in some quarters—that we are not interested in the welfare of


pre-school children and their families. As the hon. Gentleman has conceded, the reason for the Adjournment debate has now passed. However, I shall discuss our policy under four broad headings: prevention, regulation, support and last, but by no means least, optimising the use of resources.
First I shall deal with prevention, by which I mean measures to prevent family breakdown and to avert the need to take children into local authority care. Ideally the pre-school child should be cared for by a parent. There is no substitute for the love, care and attention which a committed parent can give. Where that is not possible, we feel that the first priority for the statutory authorities and all others involved in this field must be to seek to meet the needs of those families with a special social or health need for day care. Such families are often called the priority families. These include many of those about whom both hon. Gentlemen have tonight expressed such concern. Day nurseries undoutedly have an important role to play in meeting the needs of these families. However, we think that it is particularly important that their needs should be looked at also on a wider basis —for the facilities available in day nurseries to be complemented and supplemented by other forms of day care. Day nurseries are expensive and, even more important, there is a growing body of expert opinion that considers that the institutional type of care that they provide is not the best thing for many young children. One possible answer is to increase the involvement of parents in the day-to-day running of nurseries. This is now happening in a number of places, and I welcome all moves in that direction. Parental involvement benefits the children—by adding to the homely atmosphere in the nursery—and it can also be of great benefit to the parents, many of whom can learn much from the skill and expertise of the staff in looking after children, in playing with them and in coping with the problems, fads, tantrums and idiosyncracies that small children are so prone to display.
To have parents around all the time may make life more complicated and may disturb a well-established routine. I hope however, that staff will appreciate the

benefits to be gained and that they will recognise the value of such moves. However, for many young children, especially those under 3 and those with special problems, such as beset many of those in the priority groups, the sort of care such as that which a good childminder can provide is likely to be more in tune with the child's limited capacity for social contacts than the communal experience of a day nursery.
Good child minding also has many advantages for working mothers, as it can more readily be arranged to suit their hours of work and is often much nearer home than other forms of provision. Another great advantage is that it can readily be related to the particular needs of an individual child. It can encourage the development of relationships with individual adults that are often difficult to foster in a day nursery with the frequent changes of staff that most of them experience. I, therefore, welcome the moves that a number of local authorities are making to develop child-minding services in their areas. I am very interested in schemes that link childminders and day nurseries that operate in the same area. In this way it is much easier to choose the form of day care—and the individual best able to provide it—for a particular child.
I move on now to the second strand of our policy in this field—the regulation of services. We fully recognise that some parents will need to go out to work. It is not, however, for the State automatically to provide facilities for the children of working mothers. But the State has a very real interest in ensuring that the quality of the day care services for young children is satisfactory. We have, therefore, stressed to local authorities—which are responsible for regulating day care services in their area—the importance of doing all they can to foster the development and raise the standard of day care facilities in their area. While resource constraints will clearly limit what can be done in this field at present, we see the benefits to be gained from support and advice services for childminders, private day nurseries and other facilities as an excellent investment. I am, therefore, particularly pleased to hear of the plans, to which I shall be referring again later, of the Lancashire authorities to foster an increasing degree of professionalism


among childminders working in the county.
The legislation that governs the regulation of day care services is also often criticised as being out of date and unworkable. It dates back to 1948, and we are therefore looking at it to see whether it should be brought more into line with current needs.
The third strand of our policy—support —brings me on to a subject very close to our hearts. That is the need to counter the all too common attitude that mothers who stay at home to look after their children are doing a second-rate job. We must stop demoralising the country's mothers. The job that they do is frequently more demanding and skilled than any job done by their husbands. I feel that it is vital that the importance of the role of the mother who looks after her children at home should be fully acknowledged and that steps should be taken to improve the quality of her life.
For that reason, we particularly welcome the work being done by the preschool playgroup movement to enable mothers with young children to get out and about. That is of great benefit to mothers and their children. The development of playgroups can do much to develop a spirit of community in an area and help to relieve the loneliness and isolation that affects the lives of many mothers with young children.
The last strand of our policy that I want to mention tonight is the need to optimise the use of all available resources, not only of scarce finance and skilled manpower, but of all the good will and expertise available in the community. I have already mentioned the work of the preschool playgroups movement. There are many other examples of valuable and imaginative work being done by voluntary agencies and from community initiatives. We hope that authorities will foster these initiatives.
It was the policy of the previous Government to encourage co-ordination in the provision of services for under-fives, and we are happy to maintain that policy. We want to ensure that all those working in the field of the under-fives work together to ensure that developments in one area, or by one group, are planned in full knowledge of what is being done

by others. Only in that way can we ensure that we are making optimum use of all resources.
We need to involve all those who have an interest in the needs of under-fives—the statutory agencies and the voluntary organisations. I am fully aware of the difficulties that that presents. The voluntary agencies are jealous, and rightly jealous, of their independence. The statutory agencies have to be aware of their responsibilities to their authorities and elected members. Professional workers have very real differences in their perceptions and approach. We are asking them all to come together, forget their differences and work together in the interests of young children and their families.
Despite all the difficulties, it is most encouraging to see the extent to which co-ordination, collaboration and consultation are being achieved. At central Government level, we work very closely with the Department of Education and Science, and also have close ties with voluntary organisations active in that field. I am pleased to say that close co-operation is also widely practised between education and social services departments and local voluntary organisations in the field. The proposed amendment to the Education Act to enable teachers to be employed in nurseries should ensure that teaching skills are more widely available, and enable another barrier to be broken down. However, there is no room to be complacent, and I am sure that there is still room for further improvements in local co-ordination to secure the best use of resources in the interests of young children.
I have outlined the main strands of our policy, and I hope that I have made quite clear the importance that we attach to the needs of young children and their families. However, responsibility for the day-to-day provision of day care facilities rests with local authorities. They have to make the difficult decisions on priorities between services in the light of their assessment of local needs and conditions. Because of the planned reduction in local government spending as a whole, social service authorities cannot necessarily be expected to maintain expenditure on personal social services at previous levels. Services for young children cannot expect automatic exemption from reductions.


However, Ministers do not regard that lightly but realise that the country must live within its means.
As the Government said in their previous White Paper on public expenditure, we expect that savings will, as far as possible, be made by further increases in efficiency, by reducing or eliminating low priority provision, by developing policies to help people to help themselves and others and by promoting collaboration with the voluntary sector. Where reductions in standards of provision prove necessary, authorities are relied upon to implement those in ways which, as far as possible, protect the most vulnerable, amongst whom must be some of the young children in the priority groups mentioned by both hon. Members. To improve child minding services in place of expensive day nursery care can be seen to be compatible with these objectives. It remains, however, for individual authorities to decide the eventual distribution of the resources available to them.
I now turn to the proposal for the closure of day nurseries in their constituencies, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hor, and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) have drawn attention. First, I should like to stress one point. It remains a proposal, on which no final decision has yet been made. Many of the proposals for reductions in services up and down the country which have been widely publicised have not, in the event, been accepted or endorsed by the authority. Indeed, I understand that the chairman of Lancashire social services committee yesterday announced that no nurseries are to be closed at present. Although I fully appreciate the hon. Members' concern for those who might be affected, were this proposal in due course to be approved, I think that we need first to see the proposal in its wider context.
I understand that the proposal, which has now been abandoned, to close the

nurseries is part of a wider package of measures. There are at present five nurseries in Blackburn and four in Accrington which provide 223 and 184 places respectively. Were they to be closed, these numbers would be reduced by 31 and 34 places respectively. Even so, the number of places remaining would represent over 20 places per 1,000 children under 5. That compares with about 16 per 1,000 throughout Lancashire and 9 per 1,000 in the country as a whole. I fully appreciate that in a town like Blackburn, with a long tradition of women going out to work, there may be a greater call on day care services than in other areas. It is, therefore, particularly interesting to note the other complementary plans that I understand Lancashire social services department has for the development of day care services. These include, I am told, further support and development of child minding services. That would be in line with national policies, and could result in services much better tailored to the needs of many children and their families. Although I have not yet seen the full details of what is proposed, and, of course, decisions remain to be taken locally, I shall await with great interest news of developments in the field of day care for young children and support for their families in Blackburn and Accrington.
It has become clear that the original reason for the debate has been put behind us. It has been interesting to hear the particular problems that both hon. Members face in their constituencies, and I hope that they have found this exposition of the Government's policy useful.

Mr. Straw: I should like to thank the Minister for the fullness of his reply, and to apologise to him and to the House for keeping hon. Members up so long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.